The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2007 ) > List of Articles


Fatigue Strength of Fragmented Incisal Edges Restored with a Fiber Reinforced Restorative Material

Lippo V.J. Lassila, Pekka K. Vallittu, Sufyan K. Garoushi

Citation Information : Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Garoushi SK. Fatigue Strength of Fragmented Incisal Edges Restored with a Fiber Reinforced Restorative Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 8 (3):107-112.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-8-2-9

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-03-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2007; The Author(s).



The aim of this study was to determine the compressive fatigue limits (CFLs) of fractured incisor teeth restored using either a conventional adhesive-composite technique or using fiber-reinforced composites (FRCs).

Methods and Materials

Fifteen extracted sound upper incisor teeth were prepared by cutting away the incisal one-third part of their crowns horizontally. The teeth were restored using three techniques. Group A (control group) was restored by reattaching the original incisal edge to the tooth. Group B was restored using particulate filler composite (PFC). Group C was restored with PFC and FRC by adding a thin layer of FRC to the palatal surface of the teeth. The bonding system used was a conventional etch system with primer and adhesive. All restored teeth were stored in water at room temperature for 24 h before they were loaded under a cyclic load with a maximum controlled regimen using a universal testing machine. The test employed a staircase approach with a maximum of 103 cycles or until failure occurred. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p=0.05). Failure modes were visually examined.


Group A (reattaching fractured incisal edge) revealed the lowest CFL values, whereas the creation of a new incisal edge with PFC revealed a 152% higher CFL value compared to Group A. Group C (teeth restored with FRC) revealed a 352% higher CFL than the control group. ANOVA revealed the restoration technique significantly affected the compressive fatigue limit (p<0.001). The failure mode in Group A and B was debonding of the restoration from the adhesive interface. While in Group C, the sample teeth fractured below their cemento-enamel junctions.


These results suggested an incisally fractured tooth restored with the combination of PFC and FRC-structure provided the highest CFL.


Garoushi SK, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Fatigue Strength of Fragmented Incisal Edges Restored with a Fiber Reinforced Restorative Material. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007 February;(8)2:009-016.

PDF Share
  1. An investigation of dento-alveolar trauma and its treatment in an adolescent population. Part 1: The prevalence and incidence of injuries and the extent and adequacy of treatment received. Br Dent J 1997;182:91-95.
  2. Incisal edge reattachment: indications for use and clinical technique. Br Dent J 1999;186:614-19.
  3. Epidemiology of traumatic dental injuries to primary and permanent teeth in a Danish population sample. Int J Oral Surg 1972;1:235-39.
  4. Traumatic injuries to anterior teeth in Italian schoolchildren: prevalence and risk factors. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:294-97.
  5. Drying and rewetting anterior crown fragments prior to bonding. Endod Dent Traumatol 1999;5:113-16.
  6. Incisal edge reattachment: Literature review and treatment perspectives. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19:731-34.
  7. Mechanical strength of tooth fragment reattachment. J Biomed Mate Res 2001;55:629-36.
  8. Long-term Survival of fragment bonding in the treatment of fractured crowns: a multicenter Clinical study. Quintessence Int, 1995;26:669-81.
  9. Enamel-dentin crown fractures bonded with various bonding agents. Endodo Dent Traumatol 1991;7:73-77.
  10. Effect of cavity design on retention of Class IV composite resin restorations. J Am Dent Assoc, 1981;103:42-46.
  11. Class IV preparation design for microfilled and macrofilled composite resin. Pediatr Dent 1992;14:34-36.
  12. The clinical performance of a new adhesive resin system in Class V and IV restorations. Compendium 1994;15:852-56.
  13. Clinical evaluation of four anterior composite resins over five years. Dent Mater 1992;8:246-51.
  14. Resin restorations for anterior teeth.1995. J Am Dent Assoc 1995;126:1427-428.
  15. Class IV preparations for fractured anterior teeth restored with composite resin restorations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003;27:201-11.
  16. Treatment of crown fractured incisors with laminate veneer restorations. An expermental study. Endodo Dent Traumatol 1992;8:30-35.
  17. Fatigue properties of dental alloys 12% Au-Pd-Ag alloys and type III gold alloy. Aichi Gakuin Daigaku Shigakkai Shi 1989;27:1017-27. Japanese
  18. Survival rates of resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures with a mean follow- up of 42 month: A pilot study. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91:241-46.
  19. Prosthodontic treatment with a glass fiber-reinforced resin-bonded partial denture: A clinical report. Prosthet Dent 1999;82:132-35.
  20. Experience of using glass fibers with multiphase acrylic resin systems. In:Vallittu PK, editor. Theoretical background and clinical examples. The First Symposium on Fiber Reinforcement Plastic Dentistry, Institute of Dentistry and Biomaterials Project, University of Turku, Finland (1999).
  21. Effect of fiber position and orientation on fracture load of fiber-reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2004;20:947-55.
  22. Continuous-fiber performs reinforcement dental resin composite restorations. Dent Mater 2003;19:523-30.
  23. The influence of short- term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composite. Biomaterials 2002;23:2221-229.
  24. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial denture. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13: 72-78.
  25. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:318-26.
  26. Curring of silane coupling agent and its effect on the transverse strength of autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate-glass fiber composite. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:124-30.
  27. Mechanical Metallurgy McGraw-Hill Book Co. New York 1961;446-49.
  28. Compressive fatigue limits of composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1979;58:1093-96.
  29. A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J Am Statis 1948;43:109-26.
  30. Failure of materials in mechanical design: Analysis, Prediction, Prevention. John Wiley and Sons; Collins New York 1981;360-78.
  31. Bonding of enamel-dentin crown fractures with GLU-MA and resin. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2:277-80.
  32. Restoration of fractured central incisor using original tooth fragment. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;105:646-48.
  33. Strength of adhesive-bonded fiber- reinforced composites to enamel and dentin substrates. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:301-11.
  34. Tensile fatigue strength of light cure composite resin for posterior teeth. Dent Mater J 1995;14:175-84.
  35. In vitro fatigue behavior of restorative composites and glass ionomers. Dent Mater 1995;11:137-41.
  36. Fatigue strength of particulate filler composite reinforced with fibers. Dent Mater J 2004;23:166-74.
  37. Static and fatigue compression test for particulate filler composite resin with fiber-reinforced composite substructure. Dent Mater 2006, e-pub ahead of print.
  38. Fracture resistance of fragmented incisal edges restored with fiber-reinforced composite. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:91-95.
  39. Load bearing capacity of fiber-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. J Dent 2006;34:179-84.
  40. The strength of multiplayer and repaired composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1978; 39: 63-67.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.