Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials.
Am J Dent. 2002 Dec; 15(6):389-94.AJ

Abstract

PURPOSE

To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin and restored with indirect ceramic restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

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).

RESULTS

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.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo, Brazil.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Language

eng

PubMed ID

12691276

Citation

Dalpino, Paulo H P., et al. "Fracture Resistance of Teeth Directly and Indirectly Restored With Composite Resin and Indirectly Restored With Ceramic Materials." American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 15, no. 6, 2002, pp. 389-94.
Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A, et al. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. Am J Dent. 2002;15(6):389-94.
Dalpino, P. H., Francischone, C. E., Ishikiriama, A., & Franco, E. B. (2002). Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. American Journal of Dentistry, 15(6), 389-94.
Dalpino PH, et al. Fracture Resistance of Teeth Directly and Indirectly Restored With Composite Resin and Indirectly Restored With Ceramic Materials. Am J Dent. 2002;15(6):389-94. PubMed PMID: 12691276.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. AU - Dalpino,Paulo H P, AU - Francischone,Carlos E, AU - Ishikiriama,Aquira, AU - Franco,Eduardo B, PY - 2003/4/15/pubmed PY - 2003/5/24/medline PY - 2003/4/15/entrez SP - 389 EP - 94 JF - American journal of dentistry JO - Am J Dent VL - 15 IS - 6 N2 - PURPOSE: To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin and restored with indirect ceramic restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 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). RESULTS: 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. SN - 0894-8275 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/12691276/Fracture_resistance_of_teeth_directly_and_indirectly_restored_with_composite_resin_and_indirectly_restored_with_ceramic_materials_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -