Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Tooth Fragment Reattachment with Different Pretreatment Conditions: An In Vitro Study
Citation Information :
Sangal A. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Tooth Fragment Reattachment with Different Pretreatment Conditions: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (12):1042-1049.
Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and microleakage of tooth fragment reattachment using light-cure and dual-cure flowable composites under different pretreatment conditions.
Materials and methods: The present in vitro study was conducted on 64 extracted caries-free premolars that were divided into eight groups depending upon the pretreatment condition and the composite material used for reattachment. Fracture resistance and microleakage following reattachment were evaluated. Data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) 16.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, United States of America, 2001). Student t-test and analysis of variance (ANOVA)/Kruskal–Wallis test were. The level of significance was set at p ≤ 0.05.
Results: Fracture resistance was significantly greater, and microleakage was significantly lesser when rehydrated fracture fragments were preconditioned with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) before reattachment.
Conclusion: Dual-cure composite resin (Fill-Up, Coltene) proved to be a better material for increasing the fracture resistance of reattached fracture fragments.
Clinical significance: Fragment reattachment has been recommended to restore uncomplicated crown fractures if the fracture fragment is available since it serves as an esthetic and biological restoration that is quick and easy to place, cost-effective, and conservative. Fragment bonding is affected by the restorative material used for reattachment as well as the condition of the fractured dentin. Rehydration of dentin and pretreating it with EDTA, as well as using dual-cure composites to reattach fractured fragments, can significantly improve the strength and decrease microleakage following fragment reattachment.
Madhubala A, Tewari N, Mathur VP, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance using two rehydration protocols for fragment reattachment in uncomplicated crown fractures. Dent Traumatol 2019;35(3):199–203. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12473
De Santis R, Prisco D, Nazhat SN, et al. Mechanical strength of tooth fragment reattachment. J Biomed Mater Res 2001;55(4):629–636. DOI: 10.1002/1097-4636(20010615)55:4<629::aid-jbm1057>3.0.co;2-2
Hofmann N, Papsthart G, Hugo B, et al. Comparison of photo-activation versus chemical or dual-curing of resin-based luting cements regarding flexural strength, modulus and surface hardness. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28(11):1022–1028. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00809.x
Peutzfeldt A. Dual-cure resin cement: in vitro wear and effect of quantity of remaining double bonds, filler volume, and light curing. Acta Odontol Scand 1995;53(1):29–34. DOI: 10.3109/00016359509005941
El-Mowafy OM, Rubo MH, El-Badrawy WA. Hardening of new resin cements cured through a ceramic inlay. Oper Dent 1999;24(1):38–44.
de Sousa APBR, França K, de Lucas Rezende LVM, et al. In vitro tooth reattachment techniques: a systematic review. Dent Traumatol 2018;34(5):297–310. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12414
Kimura Y, Wilder-Smith PB, Krasieva TB, et al. Visualization and quantification of dentin structure using confocal laser scanning microscopy. J Biomed Opt 1997;2(3):267–274. DOI: 10.1117/12.275220
Patnana AK, Kanchan T. Tooth Fracture. StatPearls; 2020.
Bajaj D, Sundaram N, Nazari A et al. Age, dehydration and fatigue crack growth in dentin. Biomaterials 2006;27(11):2507–2517. DOI: 10.1016/j.biomaterials.2005.11.035
Sapna CM, Kumar R, Rajan RR, et al. Uncomplicated crown fracture: a biological management option. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2014;1(1):15–17.
Terry DA. Adhesive reattachment of a tooth fragment: the biological restoration. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2003;15(5):403–409.
Pusman E, Cehreli ZC, Altay N, et al. Fracture resistance oftooth fragment reattachment: effects if different preparation techniques and adhesive materials. Dent Traumatol 2010;26(1):9–15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2009.00855.x
Munksgaard EC, Højtved L, Jørgensen EH, et al. Enamel-dentin crown fractures bonded with various bonding agents. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991;7(2):73–77. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1991.tb00188.x
Andreasen FM, Noré JG, Andreasen JO, et al. Long-term survival of fragment bonding in the treatment of fractured crowns: a multicentre clinical study. Quintessence Int 1995;26(10):669–681.
Garcia FCP, Poubel DLN, Almeida JCF, et al. Tooth fragment reattachment techniques - a systematic review. Dent Traumatol 2018;34(3):135–143. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12392
Diangelis AJ, Andreasen JO, Ebeleseder KA, et al. International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: 1. Fractures and luxations of permanent teeth. Dent Traumatol 2012;28(1):2–12. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2011.01103.x
Nakabayashi N, Kojima K, Masuhara E. The promotion of adhesion by the infiltration of monomers into tooth substrates. J Biomed Mater Res 1982;16(3):265–273. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.820160307
Liu Y, Liu Q, Yu QS, et al. Nonthermal atmospheric plasmas in dental restoration. J Dent Res 2016;95(5):496–505. DOI: 10.1177/0022034516629425
Pashley DH, Tay FR, Carvalho RM, et al. From dry bonding to water-wet bonding to ethanol-wet bonding. A review of the interactions between dentin matrix and solvated resins using a macro-model of the hybrid layer. Am J Dent 2007;20(1):7–20.
Vincent O, Marguet B, Stroock AD. Imbibition triggered by capillary condensation in nanopores. Langmuir 2017;33(7):1655–1661. DOI: 10.1021/acs.langmuir.6b04534
Boudot M, Elettro H, Grosso D. Converting water adsorption and capillary condensation in usable forces with simple porous inorganic thin films. ACS Nano 2016;10(11):10031–10040. DOI: 10.1021/acsnano.6b04648
Lokade A, Tewari N, Goel S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fragment reattachment protocols for the management of teeth with crown-root fractures. Dent Traumatol 2022;38(4):319–324. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12745
Haller B. Recent developments in dentin bonding. Am J Dent 2000;13(1):44–50.
Swift EJ Jr, Perdigão J, Heymann HO. Bonding to enamel and dentin: a brief history and state of the art, 1995. Quintessence Int 1995;26(2):95–110.
Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, et al. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin inter diffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1992;71(8):1530–1540. DOI: 10.1177/00220345920710081301
Sano H, Shono T, Takatsu T, et al. Microporous dentin zone beneath resin-impregnated layer. Oper Dent 1994;19(2):59–64.
Shafiei F, Memarpour M. Effect of EDTA conditioning on microleakage of four adhesive systems in composite restorations. Front Dent 2008;5(4)150–155.
Takarada K. Stable adhesion to dentin. Combination of EDTA 3-2 (NH4/Fe) pretreatment and 2% 4-META/MMA-TBB resin. Shika Zairyo Kikai 1990;9(6):841–849.
Verma G, Trehan M, Sharma S. Comparison of shear bond strength and estimation of adhesive remnant index between light-cure composite and dual-cure composite: an in vitro study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;6(3):166–170. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1212
Cho BH, Dickens SH, Bae JH, et al. Effect of interfacial bond quality on the direction of polymerization shrinkage flow in resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2002;27(3):297–304.
Kasraie S, Azarsina M, Khamverdi Z, et al. Microleakage of dual-cured adhesive systems in class V composite resin restorations. J Dent (Tehran)) 2012;9(2):99–106.
Tay FR, Pashley DH, Peters MC. Adhesive permeability affects composite coupling to dentin treated with a self-etch adhesive. Oper Dent 2003;28(5):610–621.
Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, et al. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002;30(7-8):371–382. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(02)00064-7
Blomlöf JP, Blomlöf LB, Cederlund AL, et al. A new concept for etching in restorative dentistry? Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1999;19(1):30–35.
