World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Posterior Teeth Restored Using Three New Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study

Annapoorna K Kamath, Aravind R Kudva, Afiya Eram, Prathap M Sreekantan, Shravan Kini

Keywords : Adhesives, Bonding, Composite, Fracture

Citation Information : Kamath AK, Kudva AR, Eram A, Sreekantan PM, Kini S. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Posterior Teeth Restored Using Three New Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2023; 14 (7):608-612.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2259

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The Aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored using three new composite materials. Materials and methods: A total of 75 noncarious maxillary premolars, divided into five groups of 15 in each group were subjected to mechanical tests to evaluate their resistance to fracture. Group I consisted of Intact teeth. Group II received [mesio-occlusal distal (MOD)] cavity preparation and was left unrestored, group III received (MOD) preparation restored with evereX posterior. Teeth in group IV received (MOD) preparation and were restored with smart dentin replacement. Teeth in group V received (MOD) cavity preparation and were restored with 3M Filtek bulk-fill. The restored teeth were then subjected to compressive axial load in a mechanical testing appliance which was then subjected to thermocycling for 500 cycles at temperatures of 5 and 55° C. Results: The fracture resistance was found to be maximum in group III samples and was least in group II. The comparative evaluation showed significant statistical differences in fracture resistance determined in various groups studied. Conclusion: Under compression loading and within the limitations of this study, it was found that the everX posterior increased the resistance to fracture almost similar to that of sound teeth. EverX posterior showed the same fracture toughness as a healthy intact tooth. The samples containing smart dentin replacement (SDR) and 3M had fracture resistance lower than the natural unprepared tooth. Clinical significance: The newer tooth-colored restorative materials demonstrated good fracture toughness and better biocompatibility when compared to previously used dental materials.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Sehrawat JS, Rana M, Thakur S. Association between dental health status and changing dietary and lifestyle patterns among selected population of Shimla (Himachal Pradesh, India). Indian J Dent Sci 2022;14(3):109–115. DOI: 10.4103/ijds.ijds_108_21
  2. Ritter AV, Eidson RS, Donovan TE. Dental caries: etiology, clinical characteristics, risk assessment, and management. Sturdevant's Art & Science of Operative Dentistry-E-Book. 2014;41.
  3. Mondelli RF, Ishikiriama SK, Oliveira Filho OD, et al. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:161–165. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000300006
  4. Bassett RW, Ingraham R, Koser JR. An atlas of cast gold procedures. Department of Operative Dentistry, University of Southern California, School of Dentistry; 1964.
  5. Bader JD, Shugars DA, Martin JA. Risk indicators for posterior tooth fracture. J Am Dent Assoc 2004;135(7):883–892. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2004.0334
  6. Joynt RB, Davis EL, Wieczkowski G Jr, et al. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with glass ionomer-composite resin systems. J Prosth Dent 1989;62(1):28–31. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90041-3
  7. Couegnat G, Fok SL, Cooper JE, et al. Structural optimization of dental restorations using the principle of adaptive growth. Dent Mater 2006;22(1):3–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.04.003
  8. Hamouda IM, Shehata SH. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with modern restorative materials. J Biomed Res 2011;25(6):418–424. DOI: 10.1016/S1674-8301(11)60055-9
  9. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent 1997;25(6):435–440. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(96)00063-2
  10. Dodes JE. The amalgam controversy: an evidence-based analysis. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132(3):348–356. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2001.0178
  11. Siso ŞH, Hürmüzlü FE, Turgut M, et al. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endod J 2007;40(3):161–168. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01192.x
  12. Moosavi H, Zeynali M, Pour ZH. Fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types and placement techniques of resin composites. Int J Dent 2012;2012:973641. DOI: 10.1155/2012/973641
  13. Joshi C, Patel M, Desai P, et al. Comparative analysis of fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with class II MOD cavities restored with novel nanocomposites including fibre reinforced composite restorative system: a step ahead in composite dentistry. Adv Human Biol 2014;4(2):14–21.
  14. Buonocore M, Wileman W, Brudevold F. A report on a resin composition capable of bonding to human dentin surfaces. J Dent Res 1956;35(6):846–851. DOI: 10.1177/00220345560350060401
  15. Walter R. Bulk-fill flowable composite resins. J Esthetic Resto Dent 2013;25(1):72–76. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12011
  16. Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu PK, et al. Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2013;29(8):835–841. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.04.016
  17. Badr SB, Ibrahim MA, El Banna M. Compressive strength and compressive fatigue limit behavior of two fluoride releasing materials. Advan Med Sci 2013;2(3):30–36.
  18. Czasch P, Ilie N. In vitro comparison of mechanical properties and degree of cure of bulk fill composites. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17(1):227–235. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0702-8
  19. Sorrentino R. Effect of post retained composite restorations of mesial-occlusal-distal cavities on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Adhes Dent 2007;9(1):49–56.
  20. Garlapati TG, Krithikadatta J, Natanasabapathy V. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with short fiber composite used as a core material—an in vitro study. J Prosthodont Res 2017;61(4):464–470. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.02.001
  21. Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites. Am J Dent 2001;14(4):216–220.
  22. Didem A, Yalcin G. Comparative mechanical properties of bulk-fill resins. Open journal of composite materials. 2014 Apr 4;2014.
  23. Garoushi SK, Hatem M, Lassila LV, et al. The effect of short fiber composite base on microleakage and load-bearing capacity of posterior restorations. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2015;1(1):6–12. DOI: 10.3109/23337931.2015.1017576
  24. Silva GR, Silva NR, Soares PV, et al. Influence of different load application devices on fracture resistance of restored premolars. Brazilian Dent J 2012;23(5):484–489. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402012000500003
  25. Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Operat Dent 1990;15(2):42–47.
  26. Arola D, Galles LA, Sarubin MF. A comparison of the mechanical behavior of posterior teeth with amalgam and composite MOD restorations. J Dent 2001;29(1):63–73. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(00)00036-1
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.