FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF RESTORED MAXILLARY PREMOLARS

Authors

  • B. Petronijević Department of Prosthetic Dentristry, Clinic of Dentristry, Hajduk Veljkova 12, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • D. Marković Department of Prosthetic Dentristry, Clinic of Dentristry, Hajduk Veljkova 12, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • I. Šarčev Department of Prosthetic Dentristry, Clinic of Dentristry, Hajduk Veljkova 12, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • A. Anđelković School of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia
  • M. Jeremić Knežević School of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Novi Sad, Serbia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.7251/COMEN1202219P

Abstract

Extensively damaged teeth can be restored by different core build-up materials. The aim of this study was to examine the fracture resistance of restored maxillary premolars with composite resin, dental amalgam and glass ionomer cement (GIC) using compressive strength test. Also, to analyse the influence of bond strength of restorative materials on intact and carious dentin. Eighty extracted human maxillary premolars with intact and carious dentin were used in the study. The control group consisted of ten unrestored teeth with intact dentin. Artificial defect in dentin was prepared using diamond bur up to the half of the anatomic crown of the tooth. After core build-up procedure, each specimen was mounted in auto polymerizing acrylic resin blocks 2mm below cement enamel junction and they were kept in distilled water at 37 oC one day before testing. Then, they were placed in specially adapted devices at an angle of 183o to the longitudinal axis and subjected to a controlled load of 1mm per minute. There were significant differences among control group and restored teeth with composite resin, amalgam and GIC. Results showed that the best fracture values were obtained in control group (749,4N , then intact teeth restored with composite resin (492,5N) and amalgam (341,2N). In the group with carious dentin, values were lower, for composite resin 345,5 N and for amalgam 474,5N.   There were no significant differences among restored groups with intact and carious dentin (p<0.05). The fracture force corresponding to the teeth restored with GIC were significantly lower compared to the control group and the group with composite resin and amalgam. Satisfactory mechanical properties of restored premolars were obtained using composite resin and dental amalgam as a core build-up material. The carious-affected dentin led to lower bond strength of restored teeth.

References

[1] B. I. Cohen, M. K. Pagnillo, I. Newman, B. L. Musikant, A. S. Deutsch, Retention of a core material supported by three post head designs. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 83 (2000) 624–8.

[2] E. C. Combe, A. M. S. Shaglouf, D. C. Watts, N. H. F. Wilson, Mechanical properties of direct core build-up materials. Dental Materials, Vol. 15(1999) 158−165.

[3] G. J. Schillingburg, S. Hobo, L. D. Whitsett, R. Jacobi, S. E. Brackett, Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chichago: Quintessence (1997) 185.

[4] R. W. Wassell, E. R. Smart. Cores for teeth with vital pulps, British Dental Journal, Vol. 192(2002) 499−502, 505−509.

[5] P. H. R. Wilson, N. L. Fisher , D. W. Bartlett. Direct Cores for Vital Teeth – Materials and Methods Used to Retain Cores in Vital Teeth, European Journal of Prosthodontic Restorative Dentistry, Vol. 10 (2002)157−162.

[6] J. I. M. Tirado, W. W. Nagy, V. B. Dhuru, A. J. Ziebert. The effect of thermocycling on the fracture toughness and hardness of core buildup material, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 86 (2001) 474−480.

[7] G. C. Cho, L. M. Kaneko, T. E. Donovan, S.N. White. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 82 (1999) 272−276.

[8] T. Stober, P. Rammelsberg. The failure rate of adhesively retained composite core build-ups in comparison with metal-added glass ionomer core build-ups,Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 33 (2005) 27−32.

[9] B. I. Cohen, M. K. Pagnillo, A. S. Deutsch, B. L. Musikant. Fracture strengths of three core resto-rative materials supported with or without a prefabricated split-shank post, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 78 (1997) 560−565.

[10] S. Levartovsky, G. R. Goldstein, M. Georgescu. Shear bond strength of several new core materials, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 75 (1996) 154−158.

[11] F.J. T. Burke, A. G. Shaglouf, E. C. Combe, N. H.F. Wilson. Fracture resistance of five pin-retained core build-up materials on teeth with and without extracoronal preparation, Operative Dentistry, Vol. 25 (2000) 388−394.

[12] L. Ceballos, D. G. Camejo, M. V. Fuentes, et al. Microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etch adhesives to caries-affected dentine, Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 31 (2003) 469−477.

[13] Z. C. Çehreli, A. R. Yazici, T. Akca, G. Özgünaltay. A morphological and micro-tensile bond strength evaluation of a single-bottle adhesive to caries-affected human dentine after four different caries removal techniques, Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 31 (2003) 429−435.

[14] M. Yoshiyama, F. R. Tay, J. Doi, et al. Bonding of Self-etch and Total-etch Adhesives to Carious Dentin, Journal of Dental Restoration, Vol. 81 (2002) 556−560.

[15] V. Sattabanasuk, M. F. Burrow, Y. Shimada, J. Tagami, Resin adhesion to caries-affected dentine after different removal methods. Australian Dental Journal, 51 (2006) 162−169.

[16] Y Wang, P Spencer. Hybridization efficiency of the adhesive/ dentin interface with wet bonding, Journal of Dental Research, Vol. 82 (2003) 141−145.

[17] M Staninec, GW Marshall, JF Hilton, Ultimate tensile strength of dentin: Evidence for a damage mechanics approach to dentin failure. International Journal of Biomedical Material Research, Vol. 63 (2002) 342−345.

[18] SE Strawn, JM White, GW Marshall, L Gee, HE Goodies, SJ Marshall, Spectroscopic changes in human dentine exposed to various storage solutions- short term. Journal of Dentistry, Vol. 24 (1996) 417−423.

[19] P. Jacques, J. Hebling, Effect of dentin conditioners on the microtensile bond strength of a conventional and a self-etching primer adhesive system. Dental Materials, Vol. 21 (2005) 103−109.

[20] K. Shirai, J. De Munck, Y. Yoshida, Effect of cavity configuration and aging on the bonding effectiveness of six adhesives to dentin. Dental Materials, Vol. 21 (2005) 110−124.

[21] D. Marković, B Petronijević, L. Blažić, I. Šarčev, T. Atanacković, Bond strength comparison of three core build-up materials used to restore maxillary incisor teeth. Contemporary Materials, Vol. II−1 (2011) 62−68.

[22] R. E. Kovarik, L. C. Breeding, W. F. Caughman, Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 68 (1992) 584.

[23] P. N. Mason, M. Ferrari. In vivo evaluation of glass-ionomer cement adhesion to dentin. Quintessence International, Vol. 25 (1994) 499−504.

[24] M. P. Cunningham, J. C. Meiers, The effect of dentin disinfectants on shear bond strength of resin-modified glass-ionomer materials. Quintessence International, Vol. 28 (1997) 545−551.

[25] T.P. Croll, R. W. Phillips, Six years, experience with glass-ionomer-silver cermet cement. Quintessence International, Vol. 22 (1996) 783−793.

[26] P. Gateau, M. Sabek, B. Dailey, In vitro fatigue resistance of glass ionomer cements used in post-and-core applications. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, Vol. 86 (2001) 149−155.

Downloads

Published

2013-02-26

Issue

Vol. 3 No. 2 (2012): Contemporary Materials III-2

Section

Articles