Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations.
J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Sep; 98(3):186-92.JP

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Cavity preparations have routinely been associated with decreased fracture strength of restored teeth.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of endodontic treatment and thermal cycling on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic or composite resin inlay restorations.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

One hundred sound, maxillary premolars were selected. Twenty intact teeth served as a control group. Eighty teeth were prepared with MOD cavity preparations; half of them were also endodontically treated. Inlay restorations were prepared with composite resin (Filtek Z250) or feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur Alpha). Half of the specimens for each group were submitted to thermal cycling (500 cycles, between 5 and 55 degrees C, dwell time of 30 seconds). The specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading using a steel ball. Data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test (alpha=.05).

RESULTS

Except for those teeth restored with ceramic without endodontic treatment and thermal cycling, no other group achieved fracture strength similar to sound teeth. Ceramic and composite resin restorations provided similar resistance to fracture. There was a significant interaction between endodontic therapy and thermal cycling (P<.001). In the nonthermal cycled groups, endodontically treated teeth showed significantly lower fracture resistance (P<.001). All experimental groups had similar fracture strength when submitted to thermal cycling.

CONCLUSIONS

Both restorative techniques provided similar fracture resistance. Endodontic treatment decreased the fracture resistance of nonthermal cycled specimens, while thermal cycling decreased the fracture resistance of nonendodontically treated specimens.

Links

Publisher Full Text
Aggregator Full Text

Authors+Show Affiliations

de V Habekost L
Department of Operative Dentistry, RS, Brazil. luvh@bol.com.br
Camacho GB
No affiliation info available
Azevedo EC
No affiliation info available
Demarco FF
No affiliation info available

MeSH

Analysis of VarianceBicuspidComposite ResinsCompressive StrengthDental BondingDental Cavity PreparationDental PorcelainDental Stress AnalysisHot TemperatureHumansInlaysRoot Canal TherapyTooth Fractures

Pub Type(s)

Comparative Study
Journal Article

Language

eng

PubMed ID

17854619

Citation

de V Habekost, Luciano, et al. "Fracture Resistance of Thermal Cycled and Endodontically Treated Premolars With Adhesive Restorations." The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 98, no. 3, 2007, pp. 186-92.
de V Habekost L, Camacho GB, Azevedo EC, et al. Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(3):186-92.
de V Habekost, L., Camacho, G. B., Azevedo, E. C., & Demarco, F. F. (2007). Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 98(3), 186-92.
de V Habekost L, et al. Fracture Resistance of Thermal Cycled and Endodontically Treated Premolars With Adhesive Restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2007;98(3):186-92. PubMed PMID: 17854619.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Fracture resistance of thermal cycled and endodontically treated premolars with adhesive restorations. AU - de V Habekost,Luciano, AU - Camacho,Guilherme B, AU - Azevedo,Eduardo C, AU - Demarco,Flavio F, PY - 2007/9/15/pubmed PY - 2007/11/14/medline PY - 2007/9/15/entrez SP - 186 EP - 92 JF - The Journal of prosthetic dentistry JO - J Prosthet Dent VL - 98 IS - 3 N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Cavity preparations have routinely been associated with decreased fracture strength of restored teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of endodontic treatment and thermal cycling on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic or composite resin inlay restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred sound, maxillary premolars were selected. Twenty intact teeth served as a control group. Eighty teeth were prepared with MOD cavity preparations; half of them were also endodontically treated. Inlay restorations were prepared with composite resin (Filtek Z250) or feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur Alpha). Half of the specimens for each group were submitted to thermal cycling (500 cycles, between 5 and 55 degrees C, dwell time of 30 seconds). The specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading using a steel ball. Data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Except for those teeth restored with ceramic without endodontic treatment and thermal cycling, no other group achieved fracture strength similar to sound teeth. Ceramic and composite resin restorations provided similar resistance to fracture. There was a significant interaction between endodontic therapy and thermal cycling (P<.001). In the nonthermal cycled groups, endodontically treated teeth showed significantly lower fracture resistance (P<.001). All experimental groups had similar fracture strength when submitted to thermal cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Both restorative techniques provided similar fracture resistance. Endodontic treatment decreased the fracture resistance of nonthermal cycled specimens, while thermal cycling decreased the fracture resistance of nonendodontically treated specimens. SN - 0022-3913 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/17854619/Fracture_resistance_of_thermal_cycled_and_endodontically_treated_premolars_with_adhesive_restorations_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-3913(07)60054-7 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -