The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 5 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Different Types of Composite Core Build-up Materials: An in vitro Study

Srinivasa Gowda, Dilip D Quadras, Shetty R Sesappa, GR Ramakrishna Maiya

Keywords : Bonferroni\'s test, Hybrid composite, In vitro study, Nanocomposite, Ormocer

Citation Information : Gowda S, Quadras DD, Sesappa SR, Maiya GR. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Different Types of Composite Core Build-up Materials: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):507-514.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2291

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the fracture strength of three types of composite core build-up materials. The objectives were to study and evaluate the fracture strength and type of fracture in composite core build-up in restoration of endodontically treated teeth with or without a prefabricated metallic post. Materials and methods: A total of 60 freshly extracted mandibular premolars free of caries, cracks, or fractures were endodontically treated and restored with composite core build-up with prefabricated metallic posts cemented with resin luting cement (group I) and without a post (group II). This was followed by a core build-up of 10 teeth each with three different types of composite materials: Hybrid composite, nanocomposite, and ormocer respectively. The samples were mounted on polyvinyl chloride block and then loaded in the universal load frame at 90° to the long axis of tooth. The fracture strength of the samples was directly obtained from the load indicator attached to the universal load frame. Results: Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test revealed that teeth restored with post exhibited highest fracture strength (1552.32 N) and teeth restored without post exhibited lowest fracture strength (232.20 N). Bonferroni\'s test revealed that values for hybrid composite (Z-100, 3M ESPE) with post, nanocomposite (Z-350, 3M ESPE) with post, ormocer composite (Admira- VOCO) with post, and nanocomposite (Z-350, 3M ESPE) without post were not significantly different from each other. Conclusion: Teeth restored with post and core using hybrid composite yielded the highest values for fracture strength. Teeth restored with ormocer core without post exhibited the lowest values. Teeth restored with nanocomposite core without post exhibited strength that was comparable with hybrid composite core but higher than that of ormocer. Clinical significance: Mutilated endodontically treated teeth can be prosthetically rehabilitated successfully by using adhesive composite core build-up along with post to meet anatomical, functional, and esthetic demands.


PDF Share
  1. Morgano SM, Brackett SE. Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics: current knowledge and future needs. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Dec;82(6):643-657.
  2. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont 2001 Jul-Aug;44(4):355-363.
  3. Chan RW, Bryant RW. Post-core foundations for endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1982 Oct;48(4):401-406.
  4. Heydecke G, Butz 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.
  5. Assif D, Oren D, Marshak BL, Aviv I. Photoelastic analysis of stress transfer by endodontically treated teeth to the supporting structure using different restorative techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1989 May;61(5):535-543.
  6. Gu XH, Kern M. Fracture resistence of crowned incisors with different post systems and luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2006 Dec;33(12):918-923.
  7. Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. In vitro evaluation of five core materials. J Prosthodont 2007 Jan-Feb;16(1):25-30.
  8. Piwowarczyk A, Otti P, Lauer HC, Buchler A. Laboratory strength of glass ionomer cement, compomers and resin composites. J Prosthet Dent 2002 Jun;11(2):86-91.
  9. Saygili G, Mahamali SM. Comparative study of physical properties of core materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002 Aug;22(4):355-363.
  10. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA. A comparison of strengths of five core materials and five post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int 2002 Feb;33(2):140-149.
  11. Ziebert AJ, Dhuru VB. The fracture toughness of various core materials. J Prosthodont 1995 Mar;4(1):33-37.
  12. Manning KE, Yu DC, Yu HC, Kwan EW. Factors to consider for predictable post and core build ups of endodontically treated teeth. Part II: clinical applications of basic concepts. J Can Dent Assoc 1995 Aug;61(8):696-701, 703, 705-707.
  13. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Apr;67(4):458-467.
  14. Rosen H. Operative procedures on mutilated endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1961 Sep-Oct;11(5):973-986.
  15. Trabert KC, Cooney JP. The endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 1984 Oct;28(4):923-951.
  16. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod 1992 Jul;18(7):332-335.
  17. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985 Jun;1(3):108-111.
  18. Watson RJ. The amalgam core. J Prosthet Dent 1968 May; 19(5):500-505.
  19. Federick DR. An application of the dowel and composite resin core technique. J Prosthet Dent 1974 Oct;32(4):420-424.
  20. Newburg RE, Pameijer CH. Retentive properties of post and core systems. J Prosthet Dent 1976 Dec;36(6):636-643.
  21. Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard LA. An amalgam coronalradicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980 May;43(5):511-515.
  22. Tijan AH, Nemtez H. Effect of eugenol-containing endodontic sealer on retention of prefabricated posts luted with an adhesive resin cement. Quintessence Int 1992 Dec;23(12): 839-844.
  23. Kern SB, von Fraunhofer JR, Mueninghoff LA. An in vitro comparison of two dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. J Prosthet Dent 1984 Apr;51(4): 509-514.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.