Tags

Type your tag names separated by a space and hit enter

Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode.
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Jan; 99(1):30-7.JP

Abstract

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Unresolved controversy exists concerning the preferred cavity design and restorative technique used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars to improve their resistance to fracture under occlusal load.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance, stress distribution, and cusp deformation of endodontically treated human maxillary premolars restored with different materials. The study is divided into 2 parts. In Part I, fracture resistance and fracture mode were determined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Seventy noncarious human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 7 groups (n=10). The control group, ST, consisted of sound unprepared teeth. Teeth in the other 6 groups were endodontically treated and each received 1 of 2 cavity preparation designs: MODd, direct mesio-occlusal-distal preparation; MODi, indirect mesio-occlusal-distal preparation. Teeth were restored with 4 types of material: AM, MODd restored with amalgam; CR, MODd restored with composite resin; LPR, MODi restored with laboratory-processed composite resin; and LGC, MODi restored with leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The fracture resistance (N) was assessed under compressive load in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha =.05). Fracture modes were recorded based on the degree of tooth structure involvement and restoration damage.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis showed that the ST group presented the highest fracture resistance values. The restored groups showed significantly higher fracture resistance values compared to the nonrestored groups. The groups restored with adhesive techniques (LPR, CR, and LGC) presented significantly higher fracture resistance values than the group restored with the nonadhesive technique (AM) (P<.001). The catastrophic fractures were prevalent in MODd, MODi, AM, and LPR groups, and less severe fractures were found in ST and LGC groups. For the CR group, there was no prevalent fracture mode.

CONCLUSIONS

Teeth with the greatest amount of remaining tooth structure and those restored using adhesive technology showed higher fracture resistance values. There was great variation in the type of fracture among groups.

Authors+Show Affiliations

Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, Federal University of Uberlandia, Minas Gerais, Brazil.No affiliation info availableNo affiliation info availableNo affiliation info available

Pub Type(s)

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

Language

eng

PubMed ID

18182183

Citation

Soares, Paulo Vinicius, et al. "Influence of Restorative Technique On the Biomechanical Behavior of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars. Part I: Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode." The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, vol. 99, no. 1, 2008, pp. 30-7.
Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, et al. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(1):30-7.
Soares, P. V., Santos-Filho, P. C., Martins, L. R., & Soares, C. J. (2008). Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 99(1), 30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2
Soares PV, et al. Influence of Restorative Technique On the Biomechanical Behavior of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars. Part I: Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(1):30-7. PubMed PMID: 18182183.
* Article titles in AMA citation format should be in sentence-case
TY - JOUR T1 - Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. AU - Soares,Paulo Vinicius, AU - Santos-Filho,Paulo Cesar Freitas, AU - Martins,Luis Roberto Marcondes, AU - Soares,Carlos Jose, PY - 2008/1/10/pubmed PY - 2008/3/19/medline PY - 2008/1/10/entrez SP - 30 EP - 7 JF - The Journal of prosthetic dentistry JO - J Prosthet Dent VL - 99 IS - 1 N2 - STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Unresolved controversy exists concerning the preferred cavity design and restorative technique used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars to improve their resistance to fracture under occlusal load. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance, stress distribution, and cusp deformation of endodontically treated human maxillary premolars restored with different materials. The study is divided into 2 parts. In Part I, fracture resistance and fracture mode were determined. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Seventy noncarious human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 7 groups (n=10). The control group, ST, consisted of sound unprepared teeth. Teeth in the other 6 groups were endodontically treated and each received 1 of 2 cavity preparation designs: MODd, direct mesio-occlusal-distal preparation; MODi, indirect mesio-occlusal-distal preparation. Teeth were restored with 4 types of material: AM, MODd restored with amalgam; CR, MODd restored with composite resin; LPR, MODi restored with laboratory-processed composite resin; and LGC, MODi restored with leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The fracture resistance (N) was assessed under compressive load in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha =.05). Fracture modes were recorded based on the degree of tooth structure involvement and restoration damage. RESULTS: Statistical analysis showed that the ST group presented the highest fracture resistance values. The restored groups showed significantly higher fracture resistance values compared to the nonrestored groups. The groups restored with adhesive techniques (LPR, CR, and LGC) presented significantly higher fracture resistance values than the group restored with the nonadhesive technique (AM) (P<.001). The catastrophic fractures were prevalent in MODd, MODi, AM, and LPR groups, and less severe fractures were found in ST and LGC groups. For the CR group, there was no prevalent fracture mode. CONCLUSIONS: Teeth with the greatest amount of remaining tooth structure and those restored using adhesive technology showed higher fracture resistance values. There was great variation in the type of fracture among groups. SN - 0022-3913 UR - https://www.unboundmedicine.com/medline/citation/18182183/Influence_of_restorative_technique_on_the_biomechanical_behavior_of_endodontically_treated_maxillary_premolars__Part_I:_fracture_resistance_and_fracture_mode_ L2 - https://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0022-3913(08)60006-2 DB - PRIME DP - Unbound Medicine ER -