The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Short Fiber-reinforced Composite Resin Thickness on Fracture Resistance of Class II Composite Restoration: An In Vitro Study

Calvina Hartanto, Wandania Farahanny, Dennis Dennis

Keywords : Class II, Fracture resistance, Nanohybrid composite, Short fiber-reinforced composite

Citation Information : Hartanto C, Farahanny W, Dennis D. Comparative Evaluation of Short Fiber-reinforced Composite Resin Thickness on Fracture Resistance of Class II Composite Restoration: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (11):1201-1204.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2965

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: This study aims to evaluate the difference in fracture resistance of the short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) thickness as intermediate layer of class II composite restoration. Materials and methods: Thirty human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into three groups. In groups I, II, and III, class II cavities were prepared. Groups I and II were restored with 2 mm and 4 mm thickness of SRFC as intermediate layer. Group III as control group was restored with nanohybrid composite. Thermocycling procedure was performed manually 250 times. Fracture resistance was measured by using Universal Testing Machine. Data were analyzed statistically using One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and post hoc least significant difference (LSD) test. Results: The result showed that group II had the highest fracture resistance and group III had the lowest fracture resistance. The difference between groups was statistically significant (p value < 0.05). Conclusion: The conclusion showed that adding 4 mm of SFRC as an intermediate layer increased the fracture resistance. Clinical significance: The use of SFRC as intermediate layer enhanced the fracture resistance of class II composite restoration.


PDF Share
  1. Sturdevant's Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 6th ed., USA: Mosby Co; 2012. p. 429.
  2. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of fiber reinforced composite, flowable composite, and a core build up material: an in-vitro study. Int J Curr Res 2016;8(6):32379–32380.
  3. Recent advances and developments in composite dental restorative material. J Dent Res 2011;90(4):402. DOI: 10.1177/0022034510381263.
  4. Should my composite restorations last forever? why are they failing? Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):92–93. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0056.
  5. Longevity of resin composite restorations. Japan Dent Sci Rev 2011;47(1):43–55. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdsr.2010.05.002.
  6. Short fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a review of the current literature. J Invest Clin Dent 2018;1(1):1–3. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12330.
  7. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of dental amalgam, Z350 composite resin and Cention-N restoration in class II cavity. IOSR-JDMS 2018;17(4):52.
  8. In vitro comparison of microleakage of posterior resin composites with and without liner using two-step etch-and-rinse and self-etch dentin adhesive systems. Oper Dent 2011;36(2):214. DOI: 10.2341/10-215-L.
  9. The influence of different thickness of flowable composite base materials on compressive strength of composite restorations. J Genet Environ Resour Conserv 2015;3(1):53–58.
  10. Mechanical properties and wear of five commercial fiber-reinforced filling materials. Chin J Dent Res 2017;20(3):137–143.
  11. Phillips’ Science of Dental Material. 12th ed., USA: Elsevier; 2013. p. 280.
  12. Biomechanical properties and clinical use of a polyethylene fiber post-core material. Int Dent South Africa 2006;8(3):21.
  13. Short fiber reinforced composite: a new alternative for direct onlay restorations. Open Dent J 2013;7(1):182. DOI: 10.2174/1874210601307010181.
  14. Influence of masticatory fatigue on the fracture resistance of the pulpless teeth restored with quartz-fiber post-core and crown. Int J Oral Sci 2012;4(4):218–220. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2012.78.
  15. Effect of restorative techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. J Stomatol 2013;3(07):379–385. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2013.37064.
  16. Fracture resistance of class II packable composite restorations with and without flowable liners. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(2):111–115. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01364.x.
  17. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite restorations in posterior teeth – results of 2.5 year follow-up. Open Dent J 2018;12:482.
  18. Mechanical properties, volumetric shrinkage and depth of cure of short fiber-reinforced resin composite. Dent Mater J 2016;35(3):418–419. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-280.
  19. New generation of short-fiber reinforced composite restorations of the posterior dentition. Int Dent – Afr Edit 2018;9(5):7–8.
  20. The effect of short fiber composite base on microleakage and load-bearing capacity of posterior restorations. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2015;1(1):10–11. DOI: 10.3109/23337931.2015.1017576.
  21. Fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types and placement techniques of resin composites. Int J Dent 2012;2012:1–2. DOI: 10.1155/2012/973641.
  22. Mechanical and structural characterization of discontinuous fiber-reinforced dental resin composite. J Dent 2016:5–8. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.009.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.