The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Mukut Seal, Pratim Talukdar, Babita Sangwan, Rahul Rishi, Kanav Jain, Pranjali Dutt

Citation Information : Seal M, Talukdar P, Sangwan B, Rishi R, Jain K, Dutt P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (7):549-552.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1887

Published Online: 01-07-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aims

The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials.

Materials and methods

The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after endodontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.

Results

The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05).

Conclusion

The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth.

Clinical significance

Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration.

How to cite this article

Sangwan B, Rishi R, Seal M, Jain K, Dutt P, Talukdar P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):549-552.


PDF Share
  1. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006 Feb;39(2):136-142.
  2. Resistance of bonded composite restoration to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004 Aug;5(3):51-58.
  3. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999 Jan;25(1):6-8.
  4. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin: an in vitro study. J Int Clin Dent Res Organ 2010;2(3):106-112.
  5. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 2008 Feb;99(2):114-122.
  6. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparation restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005 Feb;38(2):73-80.
  7. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 2008 Apr;24(2):214-219.
  8. Mechanisms and risk factors for fracture predilection in endodontically treated teeth. Endod Topics 2006 Mar;13(1):57-83.
  9. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009 Oct;12(4):154-159.
  10. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated tooth with composite and GIC as entrance filling – an in vitro study. J Pharm Sci Res 2015;7(11):984-986.
  11. Evaluation of occlusal fracture resistance of three different core materials using the Nayyar core technique. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2016 Jan-Feb;6(1):40-43.
  12. Fracture resistance of amalgam coronal-radicular restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1990 Jun;63(6):607-613.
  13. Dentin: microstructure and characterization. Quintessence Int 1993 Sep;24(9):606-617.
  14. Properties of materials in dental materials. St Louis (MO): Mosby; 2004. p. 51-62.
  15. Volumetric dimensional change of six direct core materials. Dent Mater 2004 May;20(4):345-351.
  16. Influence of UEDMA, BisGMA and TEGDMA on selected mechanical properties of experimental resin composites. Dent Mater 1998 Jan;14(1):51-56.
  17. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972 Oct;34(4):661-670.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.