In-Vitro Investigation of the Fracture Strength of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Glass Ionomer, Amalgam and Composite Resin with and without Cusp Reduction
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 31 No. 3 (2013),
6 July 2013
,
Page 131-137
Abstract
Objective: Resistance to fracture is a critical issue when it comes to tooth restoration. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with glass ionomer (GI), amalgam and composite resin with and without cusp reduction.
Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, 60 extracted primary teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups of 10. In all groups except for the control group, conventional pulpotomy and MOD cavity preparation were performed in a way that the cavity isthmus width was equal to two-third of the inter cuspal distance. Group 1 teeth were restored with Kerr amalgam and underwent 1.5 mm cusp reduction, group 2 received Z250 composite resin onlay with 1.5 mm cuspal coverage, group 3 was restored similar to group 2 but without cusp reduction, group 4 was restored as group 3 but with Quixfil composite and group 5 was restored just like the former two groups but with GI. The restored teeth underwent thermocycling and were subjected to Universal Testing Machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The recorded fracture resistance of specimens was compared. One- way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis.
Results: The mean fracture resistance was 2001.929 in the control group, 904.749 in the amalgam group, 1101.736 in Z250 composite with no cusp reduction group, 1036.185 in the Quixfil composite with no cusp reduction, 945.096 in the Z250 composite with cusp reduction and 850.313 in the GI group. The difference between the control group and other understudy groups was statistically significant (p<0.0001) but other differences were not statistically meaningful.
Conclusion: Although in none of the groups the fracture strength was equal to that of intact primary teeth, the obtained values were within the normal range of masticatory forces.- Amalgam
- Composite
- Fracture strength
- Glass ionomer
- Primary molar
- Pulpotomy
How to Cite
References
Pinkham JR. Pediatric dentistry infancy through adolescence. 4th Ed. W. B. Saunders Co. 2005; Chap 21: 330-334.
Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985; 1: 108-111.
Trope M, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composit resin. J Endodont 1991; 17: 257-259.
Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo J, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997; 10: 237-241.
Hűrműzlű F, Serper A, Siso SH, Er K. In vitro fracture resistance of root-filled teeth using new generation dentin bonding adhesives. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 770-773.
Khera SC, Goel VK, Chen RC, Gurusami SA. Parameters of MOD cavity preparations: a 3-D FEM Study, part II. Oper Dent 1991; 16: 42-45.
Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J 1999; 41: 25-32.
St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 551-557.
Segura A, Riggins R. Fracture resistance of four different restorations for cuspal replacement. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26: 928-931.
Daneshkazemi AR. Resistance of bonded composite restorations to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2004; 5: 51-58.
eI- Kalla IH, Garcia- Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. ASDC J Dent Child 1999; 66: 238-242.
Ajami B,Ghavamnassiri M,Shafiee S. A comparative study of fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars after restoration with compomer and composite. Journal of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Science 2004; 28: 212-220.
Wahab FK,Shaini FJ,Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro.J Prosthet Dent 2003; 90:168-174.
Vale WA. High speed cutting in dentistry. Med World 1958; 89: 429-432.
Morin D, Delony R, Douglas WH. Cusp reinforcement by the acid-etch technique. J Dent Res 1984; 63: 1075-1078.
Roberson TM, Heymann Ho, Swift EJ. Sturtevant’s Art & Science of operative dentistry. 4th Ed. St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Co. 2002; Chap 4: 181-287.
Gaviäo M, Raymundo VG, Rentes A. Masticatory performance and
bite force in children with primary dentition. Braz Oral Res 2007; 21:146-152.
de Freitas CR, Miranda MI, de Andrade MF, Flores VH, Vaz LG, Guimaräes NC. Resistance to maxillary premolar fractures after restoration of class II preparations with resin composite or ceromer. Quintessence Int 2002; 33: 589-594.
Fennis WM, Kuijs RH, Kreulen CM, Verdonschot, Creugers NH. Fatigue resistance of teeth restored with cuspal-coverge composite restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 313-317.
Zulfikaroglu BT, Atac AS, Cehreli ZC. Clinical performance of class II adhesive restorations in pulpectomized primary molars: 12-month Results. J Dent Child 2008; 75: 33-43.
Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent 2011; 39: 527-535.
- Abstract Viewed: 206 times
- PDF Downloaded: 222 times