Issues‎ > ‎vol3n1‎ > ‎

sdj-10057

Effect of different bonded base materials on the fracture resistance and failure mode of complex cavity of endodontically treated premolars. (An in Vitro Study)

Gollshang A. Mhammed, Bestoon M. Faraj, Rukhosh H. Abdalrahim & Mohammed A. Mahmood

College of Dentistry, University of Sulaimani

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17656/sdj.10057

Abstract

Objectives: Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different bonded base materials on fracture resistance of endodontically with complex cavities, and the assessment of the mode and type of fracture of each experimental group.

Materials and Methods:
Fifty freshly extracted, intact, non-carious human maxillary second premolar teeth with similar anatomic characteristics were selected, the teeth were classified according to their mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions into five groups. Endodontic treatment performed for all the groups except Group 1
Group 1 intact teeth (control group).
Group 2 unrestored teeth with endodontic treatment.
Group 3 endodontically treated as in group 2 and restored with (smart dentine replacement) SDR bulk-fill.
Group 4 restored with Vertise flow self-adhering flowable composite with optibond technology.
Group 5 endodontically treated as in group 2 and restored with GC EQUIA Fill.
The cavities in group 3,4 and five were then filled with Filtek Z250XT composite. Fracture resistance testing: All specimens were subjected to axial compressive loading until fracture in Hydraulic Universal Testing Machine (WDW 2006, China). The force required fracturing each tooth was recorded in kilo-Newtons. Assessment of fracture type and mode: After using ink perfusion of each sample for 5 min. Macroscopic fracture patterns were observed.

Results:
the results showed that the mean fracture load values were (1.94, 1.61, 1.79, 1.91 and 1.89 Kn) for each group from group1 to group 5 respectively. The mean fracture load value recorded by each material (group3, 4 and 5) was near the mean value of the sound intact tooth (group 1) which means that all of the bonded base materials used in this study can improve the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated teeth to a great extent. Although the group 4 (self-bonded Vertise flow base material) showed the highest value of the other materials (group 3 and 5), there were no significant statistical differences.

Conclusion:
The results predict that the three types of bonded base materials can increase the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated teeth to different extents depending on their bonding mechanisms and physical characteristics.

Keywords: Fracture resistance, Fracture mode, Endodontic treatment

References:

1.           Wagnild GW, Mueller KI (2002) Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds Pathways of the pulp, 8th edn. St Louis: CV Mosby, pp. 765–95

2.           Oliveira Fde C, Denehy GE, Boyer DB. Fracture resistance of endodontically prepared teeth using various restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1987;115(1):57-60.

3.           Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res. 1989;68(11):1540-4.

4.           Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(4):458-67.

5.           Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically        treated    premolars.             J             Endod. 1999;25(1):6-8.

6.           Sagsen B, Aslan B. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth. Int Endod J. 2006;39(11):900-4.

7.           De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84(2):118-32.

8.           Cotert HS, Sen BH, Balkan M. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(4):374-8.

9.           Rasheed AA. Effect of bonding amalgam on the reinforcement of teeth. J Prosthet Dent.

2005;93(1):51-5.

10.         Atiyah AH, Baban LM. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with extensive MOD cavities restored with different composite restorations (An In vitro study). J Bagh Coll Dentistry. 2014;26(1):7-15.

11.         Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, Oztas SS, Cakir FY. Four-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent.. 2015;40(2):134-43.

12.         Vertise™ Flow Composite; A Breakthrough in Adhesive Dentistry by: Joseph Sabbagh D, MSc, PhD, FICD and Philip Souhaid (DDS, MSc, FICD, 201103-01).

13.       Bogra P, Gupta S, Kumar S. Comparative evaluation of microleakage in class II cavities restored with Ceram X and Filtek P-90: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(1):9-14.

14.         Kikuti WY, Chaves FO, Di Hipolito V, Rodrigues FP, D'Alpino PH. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different resin-based restorative systems. Braz Oral Res. 2012;26(3):275-81.

15.         Salameh Z, Sorrentino R, Papacchini F, Ounsi HF, Tashkandi E, Goracci C, et al. Fracture resistance and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored using resin composite with or without translucent glass fiber posts. J Endod.

2006;32(8):752-5.

16.         Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent. 2011;39(8):527-35.

17.         Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent. 2004;32(4):265-8.

18.         Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent2009;12(4):154-9.

19.         Siso SH, Hurmuzlu F, Turgut M, Altundasar E, Serper A, Er K. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endod J. 2007;40(3):161-8.

20.         Sorrentino R, Salameh Z, Zarone F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Effect of post-retained composite restoration of MOD preparations on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(1):49-56.

21.         Shivanna V, Gopeshetti PB. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite resin reinforced with polyethylene fibers. Endodontol. 2013;24(1):73-9.

22.         Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Queiroz EC, Araujo TC, Campos RE, Araujo CA, et al. Fracture resistance and stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 2008;17(2):114-9.

23.         Cara RR, Fleming GJ, Palin WM, Walmsley AD, Burke FJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based composites with and without an intermediary flowable layer. J Dent. 2007;35(6):482-9.

24.         Pacifici E, Chazine M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Shear-bond strength of a new selfadhering flowable restorative material to dentin of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2013;38(2):14954.

25.         Lohbauer U. Dental glass ionomer cements as permanent filling materials?–Properties, limitations and future trends. Materials. 2009;3(1):76-96.

26.         Yip HK, Tay FR, Ngo HC, Smales RJ, Pashley DH. Bonding of contemporary glass ionomer cements to dentin. Dent. Mater. 2001;17(5):456-70.

27.         Singh TM, Suresh P, Sandhyarani J, Sravanthi J. Glass ionomer cements (GIC) in dentistry: a review. Int. j. Plant, Animal and Environmental Sciences. 2011;1.

28.         Ranga B, Shashank K, Chole DG. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin: An in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ. 2010;2(3):106.