Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Comparison of three types of fiber-reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation.
J Dent. 2001 Mar; 29(3):187-96.JD

Abstract

Three types of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) molar crowns were tested on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation under simulated oral stress conditions. Two glass fiber systems, one processed with a vacuum/pressure system, the other by manual fiber adaptation, and a polyethylene fiber system were evaluated. Every group consisted of 12 crowns. All crowns were luted adhesively on human molars and exposed to thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML: 6000 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C; 1.2 x 10(6) x 50N; 1.66Hz). The marginal adaptation was evaluated through dye-penetration and analyzed semi-quantitatively with a scanning electron microscope. The fracture resistance was measured using a Zwick universal testing machine. The highest fracture resistance was observed on the glass-fiber systems (FibreKor/Sculpture 1875N +/- 596; Vectris/Targis 1726+/-542), though statistically, the polyethylene system (belleGlass/Connect 1388+/-620) was not significantly weaker. All systems exceeded the fracture resistance required to withstand the maximum masticatory forces expected in the molar region. The marginal adaptation generally had a tendency towards larger gaps after TCML. The crown/composite-cement bond deteriorated significantly after TCML with the manual fiber adaptation and the polyethylene fiber system. The cement/tooth bond strength depended on which composite-cement/dentin-adhesive system was used.

CONCLUSION

The fracture resistance of molar crowns made of glass-fiber reinforced composite was higher than those of polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite crowns. However, there was no statistically significant difference. The marginal adaptation seems to depend on the fiber systems and composite-cement/dentin adhesive system used.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, University of Regensburg, 93053, Regensburg, Germany. michael.behr@klinik.uni-regensburg.deNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

11306160

Citation

Behr, M, et al. "Comparison of Three Types of Fiber-reinforced Composite Molar Crowns On Their Fracture Resistance and Marginal Adaptation." Journal of Dentistry, vol. 29, no. 3, 2001, pp. 187-96.
Behr M, Rosentritt M, Latzel D, et al. Comparison of three types of fiber-reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation. J Dent. 2001;29(3):187-96.
Behr, M., Rosentritt, M., Latzel, D., & Kreisler, T. (2001). Comparison of three types of fiber-reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation. Journal of Dentistry, 29(3), 187-96.
Behr M, et al. Comparison of Three Types of Fiber-reinforced Composite Molar Crowns On Their Fracture Resistance and Marginal Adaptation. J Dent. 2001;29(3):187-96. PubMed PMID: 11306160.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Comparison of three types of fiber-reinforced composite molar crowns on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation. AU - Behr,M, AU - Rosentritt,M, AU - Latzel,D, AU - Kreisler,T, PY - 2001/4/18/pubmed PY - 2002/1/5/medline PY - 2001/4/18/entrez SP - 187 EP - 96 JF - Journal of dentistry JO - J Dent VL - 29 IS - 3 N2 - UNLABELLED: Three types of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) molar crowns were tested on their fracture resistance and marginal adaptation under simulated oral stress conditions. Two glass fiber systems, one processed with a vacuum/pressure system, the other by manual fiber adaptation, and a polyethylene fiber system were evaluated. Every group consisted of 12 crowns. All crowns were luted adhesively on human molars and exposed to thermal cycling and mechanical loading (TCML: 6000 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C; 1.2 x 10(6) x 50N; 1.66Hz). The marginal adaptation was evaluated through dye-penetration and analyzed semi-quantitatively with a scanning electron microscope. The fracture resistance was measured using a Zwick universal testing machine. The highest fracture resistance was observed on the glass-fiber systems (FibreKor/Sculpture 1875N +/- 596; Vectris/Targis 1726+/-542), though statistically, the polyethylene system (belleGlass/Connect 1388+/-620) was not significantly weaker. All systems exceeded the fracture resistance required to withstand the maximum masticatory forces expected in the molar region. The marginal adaptation generally had a tendency towards larger gaps after TCML. The crown/composite-cement bond deteriorated significantly after TCML with the manual fiber adaptation and the polyethylene fiber system. The cement/tooth bond strength depended on which composite-cement/dentin-adhesive system was used. CONCLUSION: The fracture resistance of molar crowns made of glass-fiber reinforced composite was higher than those of polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite crowns. However, there was no statistically significant difference. The marginal adaptation seems to depend on the fiber systems and composite-cement/dentin adhesive system used. SN - 0300-5712 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/11306160/Comparison_of_three_types_of_fiber_reinforced_composite_molar_crowns_on_their_fracture_resistance_and_marginal_adaptation_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0300-5712(01)00007-0 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -