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

Effect of using the New Glass Fiber Pin in Resin Composite Restorations

Clóvis L de Moraes Melo Neto, Guilherme T Costa, Tarso Lorga, Gabriela C Santin, José Mondelli, Sérgio Sábio

Keywords : Glass fiber pins, Laboratory research, Metal pin

Citation Information : Neto CL, Costa GT, Lorga T, Santin GC, Mondelli J, Sábio S. Effect of using the New Glass Fiber Pin in Resin Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (5):541-545.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2296

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2018

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


Abstract

Aim: The purpose was to compare the fracture strength between restorations containing the metal pin (MP) and those containing the glass fiber pin (GFP). Materials and methods: Forty-five healthy bovine anterior teeth were used in this study. A preparation of 4 mm x 4 mm was created on the incisal surface of each tooth. All teeth were prepared in the same way. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15): group I—control: teeth restored with resin composite (RC) only, without reinforcement; group II—Each tooth was restored with a MP and RC; group III—Each tooth was restored with a GFP and RC. The specimens were left in an oven at a temperature of 37°C for 24 hours before performing the fracture strength tests. The fracture strength test was performed in a universal test machine at an angle of 90°. Results: The Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05) showed that for the variable maximum force (kgf), there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.272). The chi-square test showed that groups II and III presented over 70% of cohesiveadhesive type fractures when compared with group I (over 70% of adhesive fractures), and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The pins tested did not increase the fracture resistance of the restorations (RC) in comparison with group I (without reinforcement); however, with the use of the MP and GFP, there was a predominance of cohesive-adhesive fractures (groups II and III). Clinical significance: Evaluate if the new GFP can generate greater resistance to fracture of RC restorations.


PDF Share
  1. Shavell HM. Updating the Amalgapin technique for complex amalgam restorations. Int J Periodont Restorat Dent 1986 Oct;6(5):22-35.
  2. Oskoee SS, Oskoee PA, Navimipour EJ, Shahi S. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars. Oper Dent 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):510-514.
  3. Muhlbauer JA, Dunn WJ, Roberts HW, Murchison DF. The effect of resin composite pins on the retention of class IV restorations. Oper Dent 2002 May-Jun;27(3):284-288.
  4. Roberts HW, Hermesch CB, Charlton DG. The use of resin composite pins to improve retention of Class IV resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2000 Jul-Aug;25(4):270-273.
  5. Fennis WM, Wolke JG, Machado C, Creugers NH, Kreulen CM. Shear resistance of fiber-reinforced composite and metal dentin pins. Am J Dent 2013 Feb;26(1):39-43.
  6. Christensen GJ. Achieving optimum retention for restorations. JADA 2004;131:1143-1145.
  7. Papa J, Wilson PR, Tyas MJ. Pins for direct restorations. J Dent 1993 Oct;21(5):259-264.
  8. Chan CC, Chan KC. The retentive strength of slots with different width and depth versus pins. J Prosthet Dent 1987 Nov;58(5):552-557.
  9. Fonseca RB, de Paula MS, Favarão IN, Kasuya AV, de Almeida LN, Mendes GA, Carlo HL. Reinforcement of dental methacrylate with glass fiber after heated silane application. Biomed Res Int 2014 May;2014:364398.
  10. Fonseca RB, Marques AS, Bernades K de O, Carlo HL, Naves LZ. Effect of glass fiber incorporation on flexural properties of experimental composites. Biomed Res Int 2014 Jul;2014:542678.
  11. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 2007 Nov;23(11):1356-1362.
  12. Garoushi SK, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Short fiber reinforced composite: the effect of fiber length and volume fraction. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 Nov;7(5):10-17.
  13. da Cruz FZG, Grande CZ, Roderjan DA, Arrais CAG, Samra APB, Calixto AL. Effect of etch-and-rinse and self-etching adhesive systems on hardness uniformity of resin cements after glass fiber post cementation. Eur J Dent 2012 Jul;6(3):248-254.
  14. Lamichhane A, Xu C, Zhang F. Dental fiber-post resin base material: a review. J Adv Prosthodont 2014 Feb;6(1):60-65.
  15. Soares FZ, Follak A, da Rosa LS, Montagner AF, Lenzi TL, Rocha RO. Bovine tooth is a substitute for human tooth on bond strength studies: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater 2016 Nov;32(11):1385-1393.
  16. Schilke R, Lisson JA, Bauss O, Geurtsen W. Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol 2000 May;45(5):355-361.
  17. Miyazaki M, Rikuta A, Iwasaki K, Ando S, Onose H. Influence of environmental conditions on bond strength of a resinmodified glass ionomer. Am J Dent 1997 Dec;10(6):287-290.
  18. Nakabayashi N, Ashizawa M, Nakamura M. Identification of a resin-dentin hybrid layer in vital human dentin created in vivo: durable bonding to vital dentin. Quintessence Int 1992 Feb;23(2):135-141.
  19. Teruel Jde D, Alcolea A, Hernández A, Ruiz AJ. Comparison of chemical composition of enamel and dentine in human, bovine, porcine and ovine teeth. Arch Oral Biol 2015 May;60(5):768-775.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.