Fracture Resistance of Single‐Unit Implant‐Supported Crowns: Effects of Prosthetic Design and Restorative Material

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mustafa Borga Donmez ◽  
Almira Ada Diken Turksayar ◽  
Emin Orkun Olcay ◽  
Sevil Meral Sahmali
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Single Unit ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Prosthetic Design

Fracture resistance and marginal discrepancy of porcelain laminate veneers influenced by preparation design and restorative material in vitro

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 202-209 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tai-Min Lin ◽  
Perng-Ru Liu ◽  
Lance C. Ramp ◽  
Milton E. Essig ◽  
Daniel A. Givan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Marginal Discrepancy ◽  
Preparation Design ◽  
Laminate Veneers

scholarly journals Fracture tooth reattachment

2018 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Ahmed Hassan
Keyword(s):  
Treatment Modality ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Continuous Development ◽  
Dental Practitioner ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Tooth Fracture ◽  
Dental Practitioners ◽  
Tooth Preparation

Anterior teeth fractures occur daily, with the main patient demand to restore esthetically the resultant defect.  There is nothing more esthetic than the tooth itself.  Many techniques were described to use the fractured piece to restore this defect in case of accurate fit.  The objective of this article is to summarize these techniques to give the dental practitioners the opportunity to restore the fractured tooth more conservatively and in the same time more esthetically.  Also it throws light on the prevalence and etiology of tooth fracture. Frontal teeth are subjected to traumas more than other teeth in the mouth.  These traumas may lead to tooth fracture with or without pulp involvement.  In attempts to restore the fractured tooth in more esthetic and conservative manner, the fractured piece may be used as a restorative material. This treatment modality has gained increased popularity among dental practitioner due to the continuous development in the adhesive field.  Several techniques were used.  These techniques include, simple reattachment, external chamfer, over contouring, internal dentin bevel, and internal enamel bevel.  All these techniques try to afford the highest fracture resistance accompanied with the least possible tooth preparation.  Combination of two or more technique would result in better performance.Keywords:Bevel, bonding, reattachment, tooth fracture.

scholarly journals An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (7) ◽  
pp. 549-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mukut Seal ◽  
Pratim Talukdar ◽  
Babita Sangwan ◽  
Rahul Rishi ◽  
Kanav Jain ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Therapy Group ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Silver Amalgam ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Restorative Materials

ABSTRACT Aims The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials. Materials and methods The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after endodontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth. Clinical significance Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration. How to cite this article Sangwan B, Rishi R, Seal M, Jain K, Dutt P, Talukdar P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):549-552.

scholarly journals External Marginal Gap Variation and Residual Fracture Resistance of Composite and Lithium-Silicate CAD/CAM Overlays after Cyclic Fatigue over Endodontically-Treated Molars

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (17) ◽  
pp. 3002
Author(s):  
Andrea Baldi ◽  
Allegra Comba ◽  
Riccardo Michelotto Tempesta ◽  
Massimo Carossa ◽  
Gabriel Kalil Rocha Pereira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Composite Resin ◽  
Cyclic Fatigue ◽  
Lithium Silicate ◽  
Restorative Material ◽  
Micro Ct ◽  
Fiber Post ◽  
Marginal Gap ◽  
The Core ◽  
Interfacial Gap

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the external marginal gap variation with a 3D quantitative method and the residual fracture resistance after cyclic fatigue in endodontically treated molars restored with overlays of different materials, with and without fiber posts-supported buildups. Forty-eight human maxillary molars were selected, endodontically treated, prepared with standardized MOD cavities and randomly allocated into 6 study groups considering the “core strategy” (build-up with composite resin; build-up with composite resin supported by a fiber post); and the “restorative material” of the indirect adhesive overlay (GrandioBlocks, Voco; Cerasmart, GC; CeltraDuo, Dentsply). All procedures were executed according with manufacturers guidelines. Micro-CT analysis prior and after cyclic fatigue were executed, followed by scanning electron microscope analysis and fracture resistance test. The Two-Way ANOVA analysis showed that interfacial gap progression was significantly influenced by the “core strategy” (p < 0.01) but not of “restorative material” (p = 0.59). Concerning fracture resistance, “restorative material” was statistically significant (p < 0.01), while “core strategy” (p = 0.63) and the interaction (p = 0.84) were not. In conclusion, the fiber post presence within the build-up promoted a lower interfacial gap opening after fatigue, evaluated through micro-CT scans. In terms of fracture resistance, teeth restored with Cerasmart and Celtra Duo were statistically similar, but superior to GrandioBlocks.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document