World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  16 (2025)
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 15 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Effect of Loading and Restoration on the Biomechanical Behavior of Premolars with Simulated Abfraction Lesions

Kerena Joseline, Boopathi Thangavel, Manimaran Sekar, Sebeena Mathew, Karthick Kumaravadivel, Deepa N Thangaraj

Keywords : Abfraction lesions, Conventional glass ionomer, Finite element analysis, Fracture resistance, Nanohybrid composite

Citation Information : Joseline K, Thangavel B, Sekar M, Mathew S, Kumaravadivel K, Thangaraj DN. Effect of Loading and Restoration on the Biomechanical Behavior of Premolars with Simulated Abfraction Lesions. World J Dent 2024; 15 (12):1076-1082.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2542

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-02-2025

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the stress distribution and fracture resistance of the mandibular first premolar with simulated abfraction lesions according to two factors: restorative material and occlusal loading. Materials and methods: A three-dimensional finite element model of the mandibular first premolar was generated for analysis using software called ANSYS. Each model was categorized into four groups: sound tooth, unrestored abfraction lesion, restored abfraction lesion with conventional glass ionomer cement (Ketac molar GIC), and nanohybrid composite (Neo Spectra ST). Virtual abfraction wedge-shaped defects were prepared on the buccal cervical region and restored. The models were subjected to an axial and oblique load of 200 N, and the von Mises stresses (MPa) were calculated. In addition, fracture resistance was tested in 40 extracted mandibular first premolar teeth divided into two groups: conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) and nanohybrid composite using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was done using the computerized tomography analysis (CTAn) program and ANSYS Workbench for finite element analysis (FEA). An independent Student t-test was used to compare the mean fracture resistance between the two groups. Results: The results revealed that both conventional GIC and nanohybrid composite showed superior mechanical properties. In terms of fracture resistance, conventional GIC performed better than nanohybrid composite. The restored abfraction lesions were able to withstand loads better compared to an unrestored abfraction lesion tooth, and the oblique loads caused much higher stresses than axial loads. Conclusion: Both conventional GIC and nanohybrid composite withstood stress in different ways and could serve as suitable restorative materials for abfraction lesions from different perspectives. Clinical significance: The results indicate that both conventional GIC and the novel nanohybrid composite can be used to restore abfraction lesions.

PDF Share
  1. Jakupovic S, Cerjakovic E, Topcic A, et al. Analysis of the abfraction lesions formation mechanism by the finite element method. Acta Informatica Medica 2014;22(4):241. DOI: 10.5455/aim.2014.22.241-245
  2. Mendiburu CE, Mendiburu JC, Lugo-Ancona P. Relationship between traumatic occlusion and abfractions; their role in pulp disease. Rev Odontol Mex 2017;21(2):81. DOI: 10.1016/j.rodmex.2017.05.011
  3. Jakupovic S, Vukovic A, Korac S, et al. The prevalence, distribution and expression of noncarious cervical lesions (NCCL) in permanent dentition. Materia Socio-Medica 2010;22(4):200.
  4. Nascimento MM, Dilbone DA, Pereira PN, et al. Abfraction lesions: etiology, diagnosis, and treatment options. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2016;3:79–87. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S63465
  5. Badavannavar AN, Ajari S, Nayak KU, et al. Abfraction: Etiopathogenesis, clinical aspect, and diagnostic-treatment modalities: a review. Indian J Dent Res 2020;31(2):305. DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_863_18
  6. Goodacre CJ, Eugene Roberts W, Munoz CA. Noncarious cervical lesions: Morphology and progression, prevalence, etiology, pathophysiology, and clinical guidelines for restoration. J Prosthodont 2023;32(2):e1. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13585
  7. Zeola LF, Pereira FA, Machado AC, et al. Effects of non-carious cervical lesion size, occlusal loading and restoration on biomechanical behaviour of premolar teeth. Aust Dent J 2016;61(4):408–417. DOI: 10.1111/adj.12391
  8. Pai S, Naik N, Patil V, et al. Evaluation and comparison of stress distribution in restored cervical lesions of mandibular premolars: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2019;9(6):605. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_301_19
  9. Srirekha A, Bashetty K. A comparative analysis of restorative materials used in abfraction lesions in tooth with and without occlusal restoration: three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conserv Dent 2013;16(2):157. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.108200
  10. Narayanaswamy S, Meena N, Shetty A, et al. Finite element analysis of stress concentration in Class V restorations of four groups of restorative materials in mandibular premolar. J Conserv Dent 2008;11(3):121. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.45251
  11. Schmidt C, Ilie N. The mechanical stability of nano-hybrid composites with new methacrylate monomers for matrix compositions. Dent Mater 2012;28(2):152. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.007
  12. Güngör MA, Artunc C, Sonugelen M, et al. The evaluation of the removal forces on the conus crowned telescopic prostheses with the finite element analysis (FEA). J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(11):1069. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00953.x
  13. Trivedi S. Finite element analysis: a boon to dentistry. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res 2014;4(3):200. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2014.11.008
  14. Jakupović S, Šehić A, Julardžija F, et al. The influence of different occlusal loading on six restorative materials for restoration of abfraction lesions—finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2022;16(4):886–894. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1741376
  15. https://assets.dentsplysirona.com/flagship/en/explore/restorative/ceramx_spectra_st_hv_only/RES-SpectraST-Scientific%20Manual.pdf (Available online, accessed on 12 April 2024)
  16. Lee WC, Eakle WS. Stress-induced cervical lesions: review of advances in the past 10 years. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75(5):487. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(96)90451-5
  17. Francisconi LF, Scaffa PM, Barros VR, et al. Glass ionomer cements and their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:364. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000500003
  18. Harnirattisai C, Inokoshi S, Shimada Y, et al. Adhesive interface between resin and etched dentin of cervical erosion/abrasion lesions. Oper Dent 1993;18(4):138. PMID: 8152981.
  19. Soliman TA, Othman MS. Mechanical properties of the new Ketac™ Universal glass ionomer restorative material: effect of resin coating. Egypt Dent J 2017;63:1027. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2017.75257
  20. Powis DR, Follerås T, Merson SA, et al. Materials science: improved adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to dentin and enamel. J Dent Res 1982;61(12):1416. DOI: 10.1177/00220345820610120801
  21. Atalay C, Koc Vural U, Tugay B, et al. Surface gloss, radiopacity and shear bond strength of contemporary universal composite resins. Appl Sci 2023;13(3):1902. DOI: 10.3390/app13031902
  22. Gurgan S, Koc Vural U, Miletic I. Comparison of mechanical and optical properties of a newly marketed universal composite resin with contemporary universal composite resins: an in vitro study. Microsc Res Tech 2022;85(3):1171. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23985
  23. Wood I, Jawad Z, Paisley C, et al. Non-carious cervical tooth surface loss: a literature review. J Dent 2008;36(10):759. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.06.004
  24. Srirekha A, Bashetty K. Infinite to finite: an overview of finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2010;21(3):425. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.70813
  25. Wai CM, Rivai A, Bapokutty O. Modelling optimization involving different types of elements in finite element analysis. In: IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering. IOP Publishing; 2013.
  26. Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, eds. Phillips’ Science of Dental Materials. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2012 Sep 27.
  27. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, et al. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(1):18–22. DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.x
  28. Park JK, Hur B, Kim SK. Stress distribution of class V composite resin restorations: a three-dimensional finite element study. Restor Dent Endod 2008;33(1):28.
  29. Machado AC, Soares CJ, Reis BR, et al. Stress-strain analysis of premolars with non-carious cervical lesions: influence of restorative material, loading direction and mechanical fatigue. Oper Dent 2017;42(3):253. DOI: 10.2341/14-195-L
  30. Jakupović S, Anić I, Ajanović M, et al. Biomechanics of cervical tooth region and noncarious cervical lesions of different morphology; three-dimensional finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2016;10(3):413. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.184166
  31. Dikova T, Vasilev T, Hristova V, et al. Finite element analysis of V-shaped tooth defects filled with universal nanohybrid composite using incremental technique. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2021;118:104425. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104425
  32. Merdji A, Mootanah R, Bouiadjra BA, et al. Stress analysis in single molar tooth. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2013;33(2):691. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2012.10.020
  33. Alvanforoush N, Wong R, Burrow M, et al. Fracture toughness of glass ionomers measured with two different methods. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2019;90:208. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.09.020
  34. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, et al. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:489. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-011-0525-z
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.