scholarly journals In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate Endocrown and Prefabricated Zirconium Crown in Pulpotomized Primary Molars

2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (23) ◽  
pp. 4094-4100
Author(s):  
Yasmine El Makawi ◽  
Nagwa Khattab
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Compressive Force ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

AIM: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of lithium disilicate endocrowns compared to prefabricated zirconia crown used for restoring pulpotomized primary molars, on their Fracture Resistance and to compare the loads to failure these different ceramic restorations with previously reported posterior occlusal forces. METHODS: Twenty mandibular left second primary molars were randomly distributed into two groups (n = 10 in each group) the zirconia Crown (Nusmile zr.) Group (G1) and the lithium disilicate (IPS e.max Press) Endocrown Group (G2). In all groups pulpotomy procedure was done before preparation then each sample was prepared based on their allocated restoration, both zirconia crown (Nusmile zr.) and endocrown (IPS e.max Press) were cemented by dual-cure resin cement. All samples were loaded to failure using a universal testing machine (Instron, USA), and the compressive force was applied. The data were analysed using one-way (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc significance difference tests. Differences were considered significant at (p< 0.05). RESULTS: Group zirconia crown (G1) showed significantly higher fracture strength than Group (G2) lithium disilicate endocrown (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The zirconia crown showed higher fracture resistance than lithium disilicate endocrown. However, both tested zirconia crown and lithium disilicate endocrown withstood the application of axial occlusal forces greater than the reference values for posterior occlusal loads.

scholarly journals Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns using Different Luting Cements: An in vitro Study

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 51-58 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahed M. Al-Wahadni ◽  
David L. Hussey ◽  
Nicholas Grey ◽  
Muhanad M. Hatamleh
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Glass Ionomer Cement ◽  
Compressive Load ◽  
Aluminium Oxide ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Glass Ionomer ◽  
Luting Cements

Abstract Aim The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of two types of ceramic crowns cemented with two different cements. Methods and Materials Forty premolar crowns were fabricated using lithium-disilicate (IPS Empress-2) and glass-infiltrated aluminium-oxide (In-Ceram) ceramic systems. The crowns were divided into four groups (n=10) with Group 1 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 2 (In-Ceram) cemented with glass ionomer cement. Group 3 (IPS Empress-2) and Group 4 (In-Ceram) were cemented with resin cement. Crowns were tested in a universal testing machine at a compressive-load speed of 10 mm/min. Fracture modes were grouped into five categories. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used to detect statistical significances (p<0.05). Results The mean (SD) fracture resistance (Newtons) for Groups 1 to 4 were: 245.35 (82.69), 390.48 (67.03), 269.69 (10.33), and 418.36 (26.24). The cement type had no statistical significant effect (p>0.05) on fracture resistance within each ceramic system tested. In-Ceram crowns cemented with either glass ionomer or resin cements exhibited a statistically significantly higher fracture-resistance than IPS Empress-2 crowns (p<0.05). Minimal fracture in the test crowns was the common mode exhibited. Conclusion Fracture resistance of IPS Empress-2 and In-Ceram crowns was not affected by the type of cement used for luting. Clinical Significance Both In-Ceram and IPS Empress-2 crowns can be successfully luted with the cements tested with In-Ceram exhibiting higher fracture resistance than IPS Empress-2. Citation Al-Wahadni AM, Hussey DL, Grey N, Hatamleh MM. Fracture Resistance of Aluminium Oxide and Lithium Disilicate-based Crowns using Different Luting Cements: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009 March; (10)2:051-058.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Resin Fiber Post and Stainless Steel Post: An In Vitro Study

2015 ◽  
Vol 03 (02) ◽  
pp. 080-084
Author(s):  
Vijay Singh ◽  
Poonam Bogra ◽  
Saurabh Gupta ◽  
Navneet Kukreja ◽  
Neha Gupta
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Compressive Force ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Fiber Post ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Group I ◽  
Significant Difference

AbstractFracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with post. Aims: This study aims to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with resin fiber and stainless steel post. Commercially available prefabricated resin fiber post(Dentsply Maillefer Easy Post), prefabricated stainless steel post(Coltene/Whaledent Parapost) were used. Methods and Material: Forty five maxillary central incisors were obturated and divided into 3 groups: Control Group (Group I) without any post (n = 15), Resin Fiber Post Group (Group II) (n = 15) and Stainless Steel Post Group (Group III) (n = 15). In all Groups except control group, post space was prepared; a post was cemented, and a core build-up was provided. All the specimens were subjected to compressive force under a universal testing machine until fracture. Statistical analysis used: The results were analyzed using the variable analysis test (ANOVA). Results: One-way analysis of variance revealed significant difference among test groups. The control group demonstrated highest fracture resistance (925.2183 N), followed by the resin fiber post group (486.7265 N) and stainless steel post group (423.539N). Conclusions: Teeth restored with resin fiber post showed higher fracture resistance values than prefabricated stainless steel post.

scholarly journals Fracture Resistance of Primary Molars Restored with Endocrowns Versus Zirconia Crowns (An in Vitro Study)

2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ayman Sabbah ◽  
Mostafa Kamel
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Composite Resins ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
P Value ◽  
Pulp Chamber ◽  
Group I ◽  
Zirconia Crowns

Objective: This study aimed to assess the fracture resistance of primary molars restored with endocrowns compared to prefabricated zirconia crowns. Methods: Twelve sound, defect-free primary second molars were selected and divided into two groups: group I included 6 molars restored with zirconia crowns, while group II included 6 teeth restored with endocrowns. For both groups access cavity was prepared for the teeth to open pulp chamber. Fracture resistance of both groups was tested using a universal testing machine. Results: Zirconia crown showed statistically significantly higher mean fracture resistance than Endocrown (P-value = 0.001, Effect size = 2.72). Conclusion: Pulpotomized primary molars restored with Zirconia crowns showed significantly higher mean fracture resistance compared to primary molars restored with endocrowns, meanwhile both restorations have shown higher mean fracture resistance than the maximum biting force in children. Keywords  Composite resins; Endocrown; Fracture strength; Zirconia crowns.

scholarly journals Impacts of contracted endodontic cavities compared to traditional endodontic cavities in premolars

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xia Juan ◽  
Wang weidong ◽  
Li Zhengmao ◽  
Lin Bingpeng ◽  
Zhang Qian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Filling Material ◽  
Root Canal Filling ◽  
Surface Areas ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
3D Printed ◽  
Post Hoc

Abstract Background: This study aims to compare the percentage of dentin removed, instrumentation efficacy, root canal filling and load at fracture between contracted endodontic cavities, and traditional endodontic cavities on root canal therapy in premolars. Methods: Forty extracted intact human first premolars were imaged with micro-CT and randomly assigned to the contracted endodontic cavity (CEC) or traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) groups. CEC was prepared with the aid of a 3D-printed template, canals were prepared with a 0.04 taper M-Two rotary instrument, and cavities were restored with resin. Specimens were loaded to fracture in an Instron Universal Testing Machine after a fatigue phase. The data were analyzed by the independent samples T test and Mann-Whitney U test, appropriate post hoc tests. Results: In the premolars tested in vitro, the percentage of dentin removed in the premolars with two dental roots in the CEC group (3.85% ± 0.42%) was significantly smaller (P < 0.05) than in the TEC group (4.94% ± 0.5%). The untouched canal wall (UCW) after instrumentation for TECs (16.43% ± 6.56%) was significantly lower (P< .05) than the UCW (24.42% ± 9.19%) for CECs in single-rooted premolars. No significant differences were observed in the increased canal volume and surface areas in premolars between the TEC and CEC groups (P > 0.05). CECs conserved coronal dentin in premolars with two dental roots but no impact on the instrument efficacy. There were no differences between the CEC groups and the TEC groups in the percentage of filling material and voids (P > 0.05). In addition, the mean load at failure of premolars did not significantly differ between the CEC and TEC groups and there was no significant difference in the type of fracture (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The results of this study suggest that CEC could not improve the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated premolars. The instrumentation efficacy and the percentage of filling material did not significantly differ between CECs and TECs in premolars. Keywords: 3D-printed template, contracted endodontic cavities, instrumentation efficacy, root canal filling, fracture resistance

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically-treated Teeth Restored Using Three Root-reinforcement Methods

2008 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 30-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Soodabeh Kimyai ◽  
Horieh Moosavi ◽  
Fathemeh Maleknejad
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Mean Value ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Endodontically Treated Teeth ◽  
Root Reinforcement ◽  
Anterior Teeth

Abstract Aim The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated anterior teeth with their roots reinforced using three different restorative methods. Methods and Materials Forty sound maxillary human central incisors were randomly assigned to four groups (n=10). The crowns of the teeth were removed at a level 2 mm incisal to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). After root canal therapy, flared canals were simulated in three groups. In the first, second, and third groups the flared canals were reinforced with resin composite (RCO) (Clearfil DC Core Automix), two Reforpins (REF), and a resin cement (RCE) (Panavia F 2.0), respectively. In the fourth (DEN) group flared canals were not created. The same size fiber reinforced composite (FRC) posts were cemented with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) in all groups. After post cementation and restoration of the teeth crown with a core build-up composite (Clearfil Photo Core), the roots of the teeth were embedded in acrylic resin blocks up to 1 mm below the CEJ. The samples were loaded in an Instron testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min at a 45° angle to the long axis of the tooth on the palatal surfaces until failure occurred. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Chi-square tests (p=0.05). Results Significant differences were found between fracture resistance in all of the groups (P<0.05) with the exception being among the RCO and REF groups. The least mean value 230 (130) N and the highest mean value 830 (220) N were shown in the fracture resistance of the RCE and DEN groups, respectively. Conclusion Reforpin can be used as an alternative to resin composite for internal reinforcement of weakened roots according to the results of this study. For reinforcement of flared canals, fiber posts along with Reforpin or resin composite proved to have higher fracture resistance than resin cement. Non flared canals had the highest fracture resistance. Citation Moosavi H, Maleknejad F, Kimyai S. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically-treated Teeth Restored Using Three Root-reinforcement Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 January; (9)1:030-037.

Influence of Ceramic Thickness and Ceramic Materials on Fracture Resistance of Posterior Partial Coverage Restorations

2015 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 211-217 ◽  
Author(s):  
EM Bakeman ◽  
N Rego ◽  
Y Chaiyabutr ◽  
JC Kois
Keyword(s):  
Glass Ceramic ◽  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Ceramic Materials ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Partial Coverage ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Thickness ◽  
Ceramic Restorations

SUMMARY This study evaluated the influence of ceramic thickness and ceramic materials on fracture resistance of posterior partial coverage ceramic restorations. Forty extracted molars were allocated into four groups (n=10) to test for two variables: 1) the thickness of ceramic (1 mm or 2 mm) and 2) the ceramic materials (a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic [IPS e.max] or leucite-reinforced glass ceramic [IPS Empress]). All ceramic restorations were luted with resin cement (Variolink II) on the prepared teeth. These luted specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine, in the compression mode, with a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min. The data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey Honestly Significantly Different multiple comparison test (α =0.05). The fracture resistance revealed a significant effect for materials (p&lt;0.001); however, the thickness of ceramic was not significant (p=0.074), and the interaction between the thickness of ceramic and the materials was not significant (p=0.406). Mean (standard deviation) fracture resistance values were as follows: a 2-mm thickness of a lithium disilicate bonded to tooth structure (2505 [401] N) revealed a significantly higher fracture resistance than did a 1-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced (1569 [452] N) and a 2-mm thickness of leucite-reinforced ceramic bonded to tooth structure (1716 [436] N) (p&lt;0.05). There was no significant difference in fracture resistance values between a lithium disilicate ceramic at 1-mm thickness (2105 [567] N) and at 2-mm thickness. Using a lithium disilicate glass ceramic for partial coverage restoration significantly improved fracture resistance compared to using a leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The thickness of ceramic had no significant effect on fracture resistance when the ceramics were bonded to the underlying tooth structure.

scholarly journals Dentin bond strength of bioactive cement in comparison to conventional resin cement when photosensitized with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Fahad Alkhudhairy ◽  
Sulieman S. Al-Johany ◽  
Mustafa Naseem ◽  
Mohammed Bin-Shuwaish ◽  
Fahim Vohra
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Creative Commons ◽  
Modes Of Failure ◽  
Post Hoc

Objective: The purpose of the present study was to assess dentin shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of bond failure of bioactive cement (BA) in comparison to conventional resin cement when photosensitized by Er,Cr:YSGG Laser (ECL). Methods: The present in-vitro study was carried out from March 2019 to May 2019. Sixty permanent non-carious, intact, non-fractured molars were isolated and mounted vertically in acrylic resin. Buccal surface of each molar tooth was ground, polished and surface treated with ECL. Ketac conditioner was applied on the surface washed and air dried surface. Tetric -N-Bond adhesive was applied on forty-five samples and light cured. The specimens were allocated into four groups (n=15) according to the type of cement used i.e., Calibra (C), BA, Variolink II (V) and Maxcem-Elite (ME). For SBS testing was performed using the universal testing machine. Eight samples from each group were assessed for modes of failure. Means and standard deviations were compared using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s post hoc test at a significance level of p < 0.05. Results: The highest mean SBS was observed in group ECL-C (21.55±3.08). The lowest mean SBS was displayed in group ECL-ME (14.25±3.55). Mean SBS values for group ECL-C (21.55±3.08) and group ECL-V (20.74±4.15) were comparable (p <0.05). Similarly, SBS values of group ECL-BA (15.48±3.62) and group ECL-ME (14.25±3.55) were comparable (p <0.05). Conclusion: Dentin surface conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG and bonded to C and V cements exhibit favourable bond strength values. doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.1284 How to cite this:Alkhudhairy F, Al-Johany SS, Naseem M, Bin-Shuwaish M, Vohra F. Dentin bond strength of bioactive cement in comparison to conventional resin cement when photosensitized with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser. Pak J Med Sci. 2020;36(2):---------.   doi: https://doi.org/10.12669/pjms.36.2.1284 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

scholarly journals Overlays or Ceramic Fragments for Tooth Restoration: An Analysis of Fracture Resistance

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-60
Author(s):  
Matheus Coelho Bandéca ◽  
Adriana Santos Malheiros ◽  
Rudys Rodolfo de Jesus Tavarez ◽  
Leily Macedo Firoozmand ◽  
Mônica Barros Silva
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Tooth Structure ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Purpose The aim of this study was to evaluate the mode of fracture and resistance of partial ceramic restorations of posterior teeth. Materials and methods Thirty healthy upper premolars were selected and divided into three groups (n = 10): Group 1— control, healthy unrestored teeth, group 2—teeth restored with ceramic fragments; and group 3—teeth restored with ceramic overlays. The restorations were manufactured with feldspathic ceramic and cemented with RelyX ARC resin cement. After being stored in distilled water for 7 days, the teeth were subjected to axial compression mechanical testing with a universal testing machine. Force was applied to the long axis of the tooth at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. The data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (5%). The mode of fracture was scored according to the degree of involvement of the tooth structure and the type of restoration. Results A significant difference (p < 0.05) was showed between groups 2 (1155 N) and 3 (846.6 N), but there was no significant difference between group 1 and the other groups (1046 N), More extensive fractures were prevalent in the healthy teeth group (Group 1), which had no occlusal coverage; less severe fractures were found in groups 2 and 3. Conclusion We conclude that teeth restored with ceramic fragments may offer greater resistance to fractures compared to teeth that have overlay restorations. How to cite this article de Jesus Tavarez RR, Firoozmand LM, Silva MB, Malheiros AS, Bandéca MC. Overlays or Ceramic Fragments for Tooth Restoration: An Analysis of Fracture Resistance. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(1):56-60.

scholarly journals In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance in Inlay Restoration Prepared with CAD-CAM and Different Systems in the Primary Teeth

2016 ◽  
Vol 2016 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huseyin Simsek ◽  
Sera Derelioglu
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Compressive Load ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Second Primary ◽  
Cad System ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Cad Cam ◽  
Indirect Composite

Objective. The aim of this study was to compare to fracture resistance test of inlay restorations prepared using direct inlay technique (Gradia® Direct Composite) and Indirect Restoration System® (Gradia Indirect Composite) and CAD/CAD system (Vita Enamic® Block). Study Design. 48 noncarious extracted maxillary second primary molars were randomly divided into 4 groups with 12 in each group. All the teeth were prepared based on inlay class II preparations except for the control group. Other groups were restored with Gradia Direct Composite, Gradia Indirect Composite, and Vita Enamic Block, respectively. All restorations were cemented self-adhesive dual cure resin (3M Espe, RelyX™ Unicem Aplicap). A fracture test was performed using a compressive load. Results were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Duncan’s post hoc multiple comparison tests (α=0.05). Results. Vita Enamic Block and Gradia Indirect Composite showed significantly higher fracture resistance than Gradia Direct Composite (p<0.05). There was no significant difference fracture resistance between Vita Enamic Block and Gradia Indirect Composite (p>0.05). All restorations tested led to a significant reduction in fracture resistance (p<0.05). Conclusion. In inlay restorations, Indirect Restoration Systems and CAD/CAM systems were applied successfully together with the self-adhesive dual cure resin cements in primary molars.

scholarly journals Does Preheating Resin Cements Affect Fracture Resistance of Lithium Disilicate and Zirconia Restorations?

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (19) ◽  
pp. 5603
Author(s):  
Amal Abdelsamad Sakrana ◽  
Walid Al-Zordk ◽  
Heba El-Sebaey ◽  
Ahmed Elsherbini ◽  
Mutlu Özcan
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Lithium Disilicate ◽  
Resin Cement ◽  
Cement Type ◽  
Mean Values ◽  
Preheating Temperature ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Restorations ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Adhesive Cement

This paper assesses the impact of preheating of adhesive cement on the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate and zirconia restorations. Methods: A total of 80 human maxillary premolar teeth were assigned into 8 groups (n = 10) according to material type (either lithium disilicate or zirconia) and type of resin cement (either LinkForce or Panavia SA) with preheating temperature at 54 °C or at room temperature (25 °C). Teeth were prepared and restored with either lithium disilicate or zirconia restorations. After cementation, specimens were thermal cycled (10,000 cycles, 5 °C̸55 °C), then load cycled for 240,000 cycles (50 N). Each specimen was statically loaded until fracture and the load (N) at fracture was recorded, then the failure mode was detected. Statistical analysis of data was performed (p ≤ 0.05). Results: There was no significant difference (p = 0.978) in fracture mean values between LinkForce and Panavia SA. Statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was revealed between fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations cemented with LinkForce at 25 °C and at 54 °C; however there was no significant difference (p = 0.92) between the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate restorations cemented with Panavia SA used at 25 °C and at 54 °C. Regarding the interaction between ceramic material, cement type, and cement preheating, there was no significant effect (p > 0.05) in fracture resistance. The cement type does not influence the fracture resistance of ceramic restorations. Preheating of resin cement has negatively influenced the fracture resistance of all tested groups, except for lithium disilicate cemented using LinkForce cement.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document