The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer

  • Shafiei, Fereshteh (Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Tavangar, Maryam Sadat (Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Ghahramani, Yasamin (Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Fattah, Zahra (Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)
  • Received : 2013.11.22
  • Accepted : 2014.03.17
  • Published : 2014.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This in vitro study investigated the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored using silorane-or methacrylate-based composite along with or without fiber or nano-ionomer base. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Ninety-six intact maxillary premolars were randomly divided into eight groups (n = 12). G1 (negative control) was the intact teeth. In Groups 2-8, root canal treatment with mesio-occlusodistal preparation was performed. G2 (positive control) was kept unrestored. The other groups were restored using composite resin as follows: G3, methacrylate-based composite (Z250); G4, methacrylate composite (Z250) with polyethylene fiber; G5 and G6, silorane-based composite (Filtek P90) without and with the fiber, respectively; G7 and G8, methacrylate-and silorane-based composite with nano-ionomer base, respectively. After aging period and thermocycling for 1000 cycles, fracture strength was tested and fracture patterns were inspected. The results were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests (${\alpha}$=0.05). RESULTS. Mean fracture resistance for the eight groups (in Newton) were G1: $1200{\pm}169^a$, G2: $360{\pm}93^b$, G3: $632{\pm}196^c$, G4: $692{\pm}195^c$, G5: $917{\pm}159^d$, G6: $1013{\pm}125^{ad}$, G7: $959{\pm}148^d$, G8: $947{\pm}105^d$ (different superscript letters revealed significant difference among groups). Most of the fractures in all the groups were restorable, except Group 3. CONCLUSION. Silorane-based composite revealed significantly higher strength of the restored premolars compared to that of methacrylate one. Fiber insertion demonstrated no additional effect on the strength of both composite restorations; however, it increased the prevalence of restorable fracture of methacrylate-based composite restored teeth. Using nano-ionomer base under methacrylate-based composite had a positive effect on fracture resistance and pattern. Only fiber-reinforced silorane composite restoration resulted in a strength similar to that of the intact teeth.

Keywords

References

  1. Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999;25:6-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80389-6
  2. Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi D, de Campos E. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper Dent 2003;28:127-35.
  3. Trope M, Langer I, Maltz D, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2:35-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1986.tb00120.x
  4. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Queiroz EC, Araujo TC, Campos RE, Araujo CA, Soares CJ. Fracture resistance and stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 2008;17:114-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2007.00258.x
  5. Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent 2009;37:724-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.027
  6. Rodrigues FB, Paranhos MP, Spohr AM, Oshima HM, Carlini B, Burnett LH Jr. Fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth restored with glass fibre bundles. Int Endod J 2010;43: 356-62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01666.x
  7. Randow K, Glantz PO. On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand 1986;44:271-7. https://doi.org/10.3109/00016358609004733
  8. de Freitas CR, Miranda MI, de Andrade MF, Flores VH, Vaz LG, Guimaraes C. Resistance to maxillary premolar fractures after restoration of class II preparations with resin composite or ceromer. Quintessence Int 2002;33:589-94.
  9. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001
  10. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I:fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 99:30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2
  11. Hurmuzlu F, Kiremitci A, Serper A, Altundasar E, Siso SH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003; 29:838-40. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200312000-00014
  12. Siso SH, Hurmuzlu F, Turgut M, Altundasar E, Serper A, Er K. Fracture resistance of the buccal cusps of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques. Int Endod J 2007;40:161-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01192.x
  13. Yamada Y, Tsubota Y, Fukushima S. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:94-8.
  14. Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour EJ. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod 2009;35:1428-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.010
  15. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Pera F, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. The effect of the post length and cusp coverage on the cycling and static load of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:923-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-010-0466-y
  16. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:103-16.
  17. Salameh Z, Sorrentino R, Papacchini F, Ounsi HF, Tashkandi E, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Fracture resistance and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored using resin composite with or without translucent glass fiber posts. J Endod 2006;32:752-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.02.002
  18. Soares CJ, Soares PV, de Freitas Santos-Filho PC, Castro CG, Magalhaes D, Versluis A. The influence of cavity design and glass fiber posts on biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 2008;34:1015-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.017
  19. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2005;38:230-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00941.x
  20. Bitter K, Meyer-Lueckel H, Fotiadis N, Blunck U, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM, Paris S. Influence of endodontic treatment, post insertion, and ceramic restoration on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2010;43:469-77. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01701.x
  21. Eskitascioglu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis). J Endod 2002;28: 629-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200209000-00001
  22. Hitz T, Ozcan M, Gohring TN. Marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of root-canal treated mandibular molars with intracoronal restorations: effect of thermocycling and mechanical loading. J Adhes Dent 2010;12:279-86.
  23. Versluis A, Douglas WH, Cross M, Sakaguchi RL. Does an incremental filling technique reduce polymerization shrinkage stresses? J Dent Res 1996;75:871-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345960750030301
  24. Karbhari VM, Wang Q. Influence of triaxial braid denier on ribbon-based fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:969-76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.08.004
  25. Belli S, Donmez N, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of c-factor and flowable resin or fiber use at the interface on microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:247-53.
  26. Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006;39:136-42. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01057.x
  27. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.005
  28. Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent 2011;39:527-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.003
  29. Abd El Halim S, Zaki D. Comparative evaluation of microleakage among three different glass ionomer types. Oper Dent 2011;36:36-42. https://doi.org/10.2341/10-123-LR
  30. Shafiei F, Akbarian S. Microleakage of nanofilled resin-modified glass-ionomer/silorane- or methacrylate-based composite sandwich Class II restoration: effect of simultaneous bonding. Oper Dent 2014;39:E22-30. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-020-L
  31. Uyehara MY, Davis RD, Overton JD. Cuspal reinforcement in endodontically treated molars. Oper Dent 1999;24:364-70.
  32. Sengun A, Cobankara FK, Orucoglu H. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 2008;24:214-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00538.x
  33. Cobankara FK, Unlu N, Cetin AR, Ozkan HB. The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars. Oper Dent 2008;33:526-33. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-132
  34. Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005;38:73-80. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00892.x
  35. Oskoee PA, Ajami AA, Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Sadjadi J. The effect of three composite fiber insertion techniques on fracture resistance of root-filled teeth. J Endod 2009;35:413-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.027
  36. Gonzalez-Lopez S, Lucena-Martin C, de Haro-Gasquet F, Vilchez-Diaz MA, de Haro-Munoz C. Influence of different composite restoration techniques on cuspal deflection: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2004;29:656-60.
  37. Jafarpour S, El-Badrawy W, Jazi HS, McComb D. Effect of composite insertion technique on cuspal deflection using an in vitro simulation model. Oper Dent 2012;37:299-305. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-086-L
  38. Karaman E, Ozgunaltay G. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored using current composite resins with and without resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Oper Dent 2013;38:282-9. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-400-L
  39. Agrawal VS, Parekh VV, Shah NC. Comparative evaluation of microleakage of silorane-based composite and nanohybrid composite with or without polyethylene fiber inserts in class II restorations: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 2012;37:e1-7. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-087-L
  40. Buergers R, Schneider-Brachert W, Hahnel S, Rosentritt M, Handel G. Streptococcal adhesion to novel low-shrink silorane- based restorative. Dent Mater 2009;25:269-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.07.011
  41. Xie KX, Wang XY, Gao XJ, Yuan CY, Li JX, Chu CH. Fracture resistance of root filled premolar teeth restored with direct composite resin with or without cusp coverage. Int Endod J 2012;45:524-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02005.x
  42. Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Karimi F. Fracture resistance of cuspal coverage of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with combined composite-amalgam compared to other techniques. Oper Dent 2011;36:439-47. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-029-L

Cited by

  1. Direct Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: a Brief Summary of Materials and Techniques vol.2, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-015-0068-5
  2. Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties of Dental Nanomaterials vol.2017, pp.1687-4129, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6171578
  3. The Silorane-based Resin Composites: A Review vol.42, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.2341/15-311-LIT
  4. Effect of Different Liners on Fracture Resistance of Premolars Restored with Conventional and Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite Resins pp.1059941X, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12743
  5. Clinical evaluation of a low-shrinkage resin composite in endodontically treated premolars: 3-year follow-up pp.1436-3771, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2677-6
  6. Nanomaterials in dentistry: a cornerstone or a black box? vol.13, pp.6, 2018, https://doi.org/10.2217/nnm-2017-0329
  7. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored With Different Methods vol.44, pp.1, 2019, https://doi.org/10.2341/17-262-L
  8. Influence of Cavity Pretreatments on the Fracture Resistance of Premolars with Self-adhesive Cemented Composite Inlay vol.20, pp.7, 2019, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2605
  9. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with bulk-fill composite resins: The effect of fiber reinforcement vol.18, pp.1, 2014, https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.321871
  10. Assessing Fracture Resistance of Restored Premolars with Novel Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study vol.2021, pp.None, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/5512708