The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2014 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

The Effect of Mechanical Loading on the Cusp Deflection of Premolars Restored with Direct and Indirect Techniques

Lourenço Correr Sobrinho, Sandra Costa Zamboni, Lafayette Nogueira, Marco Antonio Bottino, Luiz Felipe Valandro

Citation Information : Sobrinho LC, Zamboni SC, Nogueira L, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. The Effect of Mechanical Loading on the Cusp Deflection of Premolars Restored with Direct and Indirect Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15 (1):75-81.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1491

Published Online: 01-02-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2014; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

This study assessed the effect of fatigue load cycling on human premolars restored with MOD restorations (direct and indirect approaches) on cuspal deflection, compared to intact teeth (unprepared) and unrestored teeth with an inlay preparation.

Materials and methods

MOD inlay preparations were performed on sixty premolars with their roots embedded in acrylic resin. These teeth were divided into six groups (n = 10): (1) intact teeth; (2) unrestored and prepared teeth; (3) teeth restored with direct composite resin; (4) teeth restored with an indirect composite resin; (5) teeth restored with injected ceramic inlays (IPS Empress 2 (Ivoclar); (6) teeth restored with CAD/CAM inlays made of feldspathic ceramic (Vita Mark II). All of the indirect restorations were adhesively cemented. Strain-gauges were bonded to the buccal and lingual surfaces of the specimens. Compressive axial loading of 100N was applied on the occlusal face of the specimens to measure the cuspal deflection (microstrain) under compressive loading. These measurements were obtained before and after mechanical cycling (1 Hz, 37°C, 100,000x).

Results

Comparing the results obtained before and after fatiguing, the cuspal deflection increased only in the CAD/CAM approach. The prepared tooth group had the highest cuspal deflection, before and after mechanical cycling.

Conclusion

the evaluated restoring approaches decrease the cuspal deflection, consequently appear to improve the cuspal reinforcement.

How to cite this article

Zamboni SC, Nogueira L, Bottino MA, Sobrinho LC, Valandro LF. Effect of Mechanical Loading on the Cusp Deflection of Premolars Restored with Direct and Indirect Techniques. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014;15(1):75-81.


PDF Share
  1. IPS Empress onlays luted with two dual-cured resin cements for endodontically treated teeth: a 3-year clinical evaluation. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24(1):40-42.
  2. Clinical evaluation of an all-ceramic restorative system: a 36-month clinical evaluation. Am J Dent 2010;23(2):87-92.
  3. Direct resin composite restorations versus indirect composite inlays: one-year results. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(3):25-32.
  4. Clinical evaluation of ceramic inlays compared to composite restorations. Oper Dent 2009;34(3):263-272.
  5. Four-year clinical performance and marginal analysis of pressed glass ceramic inlays luted with ormocer restorative vs conventional luting composite. J Dent 2009;37(11):813-819.
  6. Internal enamel reinforcement through micromechanical bonding. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36(2):171-175.
  7. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II prepared and restored premolars. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):184-185.
  8. In vitro comparison of cuspal fracture resistances of posterior teeth restored with various adhesive restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(4):374-378.
  9. Double-blind randomized clinical trial of posterior composite restorations with and without bevel: 6-month follow-up. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(1):1-7.
  10. Cuspal failures of MOD restored teeth. Aust Dent J 1982;27(5):283-287.
  11. Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques. Dental Mater J 2010;29(3):262-267.
  12. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. Am J Dent 2002;15(6):389-394.
  13. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based composites with and without an intermediary flowable layer. J Dent 2007;35(6):482-489.
  14. Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusps deflection of premolars in composite restorations. Dental Mater 2007;23(3):288-295.
  15. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 1981;6(1):2-5.
  16. Factors influencing marginal cavity adaptation of nanofiller containing resin composite restorations. Dental Mater 2010;26(12):1166-1175.
  17. Understanding contradictory data in contraction stress tests. J Dent Res 2011;90(3):365-370.
  18. Contraction stresses in dental composites adjacent to and at the bonded interface as measured by crack analysis. Acta Biomater 2011;7(1):417-423.
  19. Effect of a new resin inlay/onlay restorative material on cuspal reinforcement. Quintessence Int 1991;22(8):641-645.
  20. Ceramic laminate veneers: continuous evolution of indications. J Esthet Dent 1997;9(4):197-207.
  21. Mechanical properties of a new mica-based machinable glass ceramic for CAD/CAM restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1996;76(6):619-623.
  22. Esthetic ceramic restorations and metal-free prosthodontics: the new alternatives promoted by new porcelains. RGO 2000;48(2):67-70.
  23. Investigation of the dry and wet fatigue properties of three all-ceramic crown systems International. Int J Prosthodont 1998;11(3):255-262.
  24. Cuspal movement and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with resin-based filling materials cured using a soft-start polymerization protocol. Dent Mater 2007;23(5):637-643.
  25. Effect of acid neutralization and mechanical cycling on the microtensile bond strength of glass-ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2009;34(2):211-216.
  26. Microtensile bond strength between indirect composite resin inlays and dentin: effect of cementation strategy and mechanical aging. J Adhes Dent 2014 Mar 25.
  27. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 to silver amalgam, posterior composite and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15(6):42-47.
  28. Posterior etched-porcelain restorations: an in vitro study. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1987;8(8):615-617/620-622.
  29. Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57(4):431-435.
  30. Fracture resistance of all-ceramic and metal-ceramic inlays. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(2):109-114.
  31. Stiffness of teeth the material a function of cavity preparation and restorative. J Dent Res 1983;62(3):219.
  32. Resistance to the breaking of premolar human beings restored for different adhesive materials. Braz Oral Sci 2003;6(1):75-81.
  33. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(4):342-349.
  34. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with onlays of three contemporary toothcolored resin-bonded restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(2):167-171.
  35. Mechanics and mechanisms of fatigue damage and crack growth in advanced materials. Int J Solids Struct 2000;37(1-2):311-329.
  36. Mechanisms of fatigue crack propagation in metals, ceramics and composites: role of crack tip shielding. Mater Sci Eng 1988;103(1):15-28.
  37. Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(2):155-161.
  38. Ceramics in dentistry: historical roots and current perspectives. J Prosthet Dent 1986;75(1):18-32.
  39. The influence of surface roughness on porcelain strength. Dental Mater 2000;16(6):381-388.
  40. Effect of sandblasting, grinding, polishing and glazing on the flexural strength of two pressable all-ceramic dental materials. J Dent 2004;32(2):91-99.
  41. An evaluation of the effects of handpiece speed, abrasive characteristics and polishing load on the flexural strength of polished ceramics. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(5):421-429.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.