Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials

Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials

To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin and restored with indirect ceramic restorations. Fifty-six maxillary premolar teeth were chosen and divided at random into seven equal groups; Group 1 (control): intact teeth; Group 2: MOD...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:American journal of dentistry Vol. 15; no. 6; p. 389
Main Authors: Dalpino, Paulo H P, Francischone, Carlos E, Ishikiriama, Aquira, Franco, Eduardo B
Format: Journal Article
Language:English
Published: United States 01-12-2002
Subjects:
Aluminum Silicates
Analysis of Variance
Bicuspid
Composite Resins
Compressive Strength
Dental Cavity Preparation - adverse effects
Dental Porcelain
Dental Restoration, Permanent - methods
Dental Stress Analysis
Glass Ionomer Cements
Humans
Inlays
Materials Testing
Random Allocation
Silicate Cement
Tooth Fractures - etiology
Tooth Fractures - prevention & control
Online Access:Get more information
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin and restored with indirect ceramic restorations. Fifty-six maxillary premolar teeth were chosen and divided at random into seven equal groups; Group 1 (control): intact teeth; Group 2: MOD cavity preparations, 1/2 intercuspal distance, with rounded internal angles, convergent walls, unrestored; Group 3: MOD cavity preparations, 1/2 intercuspal distance, divergent walls; Group 4: same preparation as Group 2, restored with direct composite resin (Single Bond/Filtek Z250-3M); Group 5: same as Group 3, restored with indirect composite resin (Artglass/Single Bond/Rely X); Group 6: same as Group 3, restored with indirect composite resin (Targis/Single Bond/Rely X); Group 7: same as Group 3, restored with indirect ceramic restoration (Empress/Single Bond/Rely X). The specimens were subjected to a compressive axial loading in a Universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/minute by means of a steel bar (8 mm in diameter). The mean fracture strength obtained was: Group 1: 1.91 kN; Group 2: 1.06 kN; Group 3: 0.93 kN; Group 4: 1.45 kN; Group 5: 1.81 kN; Group 6: 1.81 kN; Group 7: 1.77 kN. The restored teeth with direct composite restoration increased the fracture resistance of Group 4 up to 76% of a level comparable with the intact teeth (Group 1). However, statistical analysis indicated no significant (P < 0.05) differences between Group 1 (intact teeth) and restored teeth groups, with direct restorations as well as indirect restorations. Both cavity preparation designs weakened the remaining tooth structure. These results demonstrated that a bonded indirect restoration could satisfactorily be an ideal option for restoring teeth weakened by wide cavity preparation.
ISSN:0894-8275