Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques.
J Can Dent Assoc. 2005 Sep; 71(8):585.JC

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored using 2 intracoronal direct and indirect adhesive techniques.

METHODS

Forty maxillary premolars were divided randomly into 4 groups of 10: group 1, intact teeth; group 2, mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) cavity preparation associated with endodontic therapy (unrestored); group 3, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with direct composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE); and group 4, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with indirect ceramic inlay (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent). Specimens were subsequently submitted to an axial compression test, using an 8-mm diameter steel ball at a loading speed of 0.5 mm per minute, until their fracture.

RESULTS

The average compression force causing cuspal fracture in the 4 experimental groups was group 1, 138.4 kg; group 2, 49.0 kg; group 3, 105.4 kg; and group 4, 82.7 kg. ANOVA analysis and Tukey tests showed that cavity preparation significantly weakened the remaining tooth structure. The fracture resistance of teeth restored using direct composite resin was not significantly different from that of teeth restored with ceramic inlays (p > 0.05). None of the materials tested was able to restore completely the fracture resistance lost during cavity preparation.

CONCLUSIONS

Cavity preparation significantly weakens the remaining tooth structure. Direct and indirect intracoronal adhesive restorations can partly restore fracture resistance of teeth weakened by wide cavity preparation.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Santos MJ
Department of Operative Dentistry, Federal University of Bahia School of Dentistry, BA, Brazil. jace@ufba.fr
Bezerra RB
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Aluminum SilicatesAnalysis of VarianceBicuspidComposite ResinsCompressive StrengthDental BondingDental Cavity PreparationDental PorcelainDental Restoration FailureDental Restoration, PermanentDental Stress AnalysisHumansInlaysMaxillaSilicon DioxideStatistics, NonparametricTooth FracturesZirconium

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Language

eng

PubMed ID

16202199

Citation

Santos, Maria Jacinta M Coelho, and Rebeca Barroso Bezerra. "Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars Restored With Direct and Indirect Adhesive Techniques." Journal (Canadian Dental Association), vol. 71, no. 8, 2005, p. 585.
Santos MJ, Bezerra RB. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005;71(8):585.
Santos, M. J., & Bezerra, R. B. (2005). Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques. Journal (Canadian Dental Association), 71(8), 585.
Santos MJ, Bezerra RB. Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars Restored With Direct and Indirect Adhesive Techniques. J Can Dent Assoc. 2005;71(8):585. PubMed PMID: 16202199.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive techniques. AU - Santos,Maria Jacinta M Coelho, AU - Bezerra,Rebeca Barroso, PY - 2005/10/6/pubmed PY - 2006/2/14/medline PY - 2005/10/6/entrez SP - 585 EP - 585 JF - Journal (Canadian Dental Association) JO - J Can Dent Assoc VL - 71 IS - 8 N2 - OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored using 2 intracoronal direct and indirect adhesive techniques. METHODS: Forty maxillary premolars were divided randomly into 4 groups of 10: group 1, intact teeth; group 2, mesio-occlusodistal (MOD) cavity preparation associated with endodontic therapy (unrestored); group 3, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with direct composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE); and group 4, MOD cavity preparation and restoration with indirect ceramic inlay (IPS Empress, Ivoclar-Vivadent). Specimens were subsequently submitted to an axial compression test, using an 8-mm diameter steel ball at a loading speed of 0.5 mm per minute, until their fracture. RESULTS: The average compression force causing cuspal fracture in the 4 experimental groups was group 1, 138.4 kg; group 2, 49.0 kg; group 3, 105.4 kg; and group 4, 82.7 kg. ANOVA analysis and Tukey tests showed that cavity preparation significantly weakened the remaining tooth structure. The fracture resistance of teeth restored using direct composite resin was not significantly different from that of teeth restored with ceramic inlays (p > 0.05). None of the materials tested was able to restore completely the fracture resistance lost during cavity preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity preparation significantly weakens the remaining tooth structure. Direct and indirect intracoronal adhesive restorations can partly restore fracture resistance of teeth weakened by wide cavity preparation. SN - 1488-2159 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/16202199/Fracture_resistance_of_maxillary_premolars_restored_with_direct_and_indirect_adhesive_techniques_ DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -