Citation Information :
Shetty S, Vyas R, Suchitra S, Gaikwad PT, Gurumurthy V. Assessment of Fracture Resistance Capacity of Different Core Materials with Porcelain Fused to Metal Crown: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (4):389-392.
Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the capacity to resist fracture in different core buildup materials with porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown.
Materials and methods: Totally, 45 mandibular single rooted first premolars were collected, which were sound along with similar shape and size. The teeth were sectioned at 15 mm above the root apex sparing the sound tooth structure. The teeth were endodontically treated with the crown-down technique using nickel–titanium (NiTi) instrumentation. The specimens were randomized into three groups as per the core materials used and were labeled accordingly. Group I consisted of dualcured composite resin, group II consisted of glass ionomer reinforced with resin, and group III consisted of Miracle mix. Universal loading machine is used for measuring the compressive load applied to fracture the tooth.
Results: The mean value of compressive strength was maximum in the dual cured composite resin (598.42 ± 22.64) followed by glass ionomer reinforced with resin (478.88 ± 26.74) and Miracle mix (442.16 ± 30.10). The results showed a significant difference statistically within the core materials used with p < 0.05. The results from the Tukey\'s post hoc test of multiple comparisons between dual-cured composite resin vs glass ionomer reinforced with resin, dual-cured composite resin vs Miracle mix, and glass ionomer reinforced with resin vs Miracle mix showed a highly statistical difference with p < 0.05, which is significant.
Conclusion: This in vitro study showed that the dual-cured composite resin had maximum resistance to fracture compared with other core buildup materials on teeth which were endodontically treated.
Clinical significance: Restoration of a tooth which is structurally compromised is a tricky job for all the dentists. Restoring it with a proper core buildup material with adequate fracture resistance makes the tooth structure stable. The core material should be able to resist all types of occlusal forces and to distribute it equally within the tooth structure.
Yalcin E, Cehreli MC, Canay S. Fracture resistances of cast metal and ceramic Dowel and core restorations: a pilot study. J Prosthodont 2005 Jun;14(2):84-90.
Mohamed Ali SA, Manoharan PS, Shekhawat KS, Deb S, Chidambaram S, Konchada J, Venugopal N, Vadivel H. Influence of full veneer restoration on fracture resistance of three different core materials: an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015 Sep;9(9):ZC12-ZC15.
Alsamadani KH, Abdaziz-el SM, Gad-el S. Influence of different restorative techniques on the strength of endodontically treated weakened roots. Int J Dent 2012;5:15-20.
Rashid Habib S, Qasim Al Rifaiy M, Alkunain J, Alhasan M, Albahrani J. Concepts of restoring endodontically treated teeth among dentists in Saudi Arabia. Saudi J Dent Res 2014 Jan;5(1):15-20.
Rasimick BJ, Wan J, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. A review of failure modes in teeth restored with adhesively luted endodontic dowels. J Prosthodont 2010 Dec;19(8):639-646.
Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Effects of three bonding systems on the torsional resistance of titanium reinforced composite cores supported by two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Jun;81(6):678-683.
Zandbiglari T, Davids H, Schafer E. Influence of instrument taper on the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006 Jan;101(1):126-131.
Yaman P, Thorsteinsson TS. Effect of core materials on stress distribution of posts. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Sep;68(3):416-420.
Raygot CG, Chai J, Jameson L. Fracture resistance and primary failure mode of endodontically treated teeth restored with a carbon fiber reinforced resin post system in vitro. Int J Prosthodont 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):141-145.
Heydecke G, Burtz F, Hussein A, Strub JR. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post and core systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Apr;87(4):438-445.
Cohen BI, Pangnillo MK, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Cyclic fatigue testing of five endodontic post designs supported by four core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1997 Nov;78(5):458-464.
Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of various core build-up materials. J Prosthodont 2000 Mar;9(1):14-18.
Coltak KM, Yanikolu ND, Bayindir F. A comparison of the fracture resistance of core materials using different types of posts. Quintessence Int 2007 Sep;38(8):e511-e516.
Shah P, Gugwad SC, Bhat C, Lodaya R. Effect of three different core materials on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated deciduous mandibular second molars; an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012 Jan;13(1):66-70.
Upadhyay NP, Kishore G. Glass ionomer cements—the different generations. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2005 Jan; 18(2):158-165.
Nam SH, Chang HS, Min KS, Lee Y, Cho HW, Bae JM. Effect of the number of residual walls on fracture resistances, failure patterns, and photoelasticity of simulated premolars restored with or without fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2010 Feb;36(2):297-301.