Evaluation of occlusal fracture resistance of three different core materials using the Nayyar core technique

Reddy, Satti Narayana; Harika, Kolli; Manjula, Shobha; Chandra, Pavani; Vengi, Lokesh; Koka, Krishna Mohan

doi:10.4103/2231-0762.175410

Cited by 9 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the present study, miracle mix exhibited more fracture resistance compared to GIC, which is in contrast to the study by Reddy et al 11 The reason could be that incorporation of metallic fillers may provide additional advantage over conventional GIC. Also, miracle mix has an added advantage of fluoride ion release.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…In our study fracture resistance exhibited by composite restoration was less when compared to that of normal intact tooth, but more when compared to all other restorative materials used. The results are similar to studies done by Ashika Riswana and Kumari 10 and Reddy et al 11 Also, many studies have shown that composites are having better bonding to tooth structure by micromechanical bonding 14,15 and exhibit higher mechanical and physical properties compared to various core buildup materials. 16 Most of the time, prognosis of root canal treated tooth depends not only on the endodontic procedure, but also on the restorative material used for the postendodontic restoration.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Many studies [9][10][11] have been done with an intention to know the ideal restorative material for a root canal treated tooth as these teeth are having less fracture resistance because of endodontic access and cavity preparation procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Sangwan

Rishi²,

Seal³

et al. 2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials. Materials and methods The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after endodontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Results The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05). Conclusion The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth. Clinical significance Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration. How to cite this article Sangwan B, Rishi R, Seal M, Jain K, Dutt P, Talukdar P. An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):549-552.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

See 1 more Smart Citation

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Sangwan

Rishi²,

Seal³

et al. 2016

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Composite resin cores experienced 83.3 % failure and required only 385,212 cycles to achieve their median fatigue life(Kovarik, Breeding and Franklin Caughman, 1992). Reddy et al concluded that the core buildup done with composite offered better occlusal fracture resistance strength compared to light curable GIC and miracle mix (Reddy et al, 2016). However, the introduction of nanocomposites made a change in the market.…”

Section: Core Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zirconia as A Core Material - A Literature Review

2021

cibg

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Teeth that have become severely compromised by decay, large failing restorations, or fracture most often require full-coverage crowns to restore them to their original form and function. A core buildup is a restoration placed in a badly broken down or grossly decayed tooth to restore the bulk of the coronal portion of the tooth. This facilitates the subsequent restoration by means of an indirect extra coronal restoration. The strength of the tooth can be enhanced with intracoronal support. It should have compressive strength to resist intraoral forces and flexural strength to prevent core dislodgement during function. It should also have sufficient flexural strength, biocompatibility, resistance to leakage of oral fluids at the core-tooth interface, ease of manipulation, and ability to bond to remaining tooth structure. The primary purpose of a core build-up is to replace enough missing tooth structure to permit the creation of ideal retention and resistance form in the crown preparation. Materials used for core restoration after endodontic treatment include amalgam, resin composites, zirconia to name a few. The aim of this review is to evaluate the use of zirconia as a core material by assessing the studies available in comparison to other core materials.

show abstract

“…A variety of restorative materials and techniques have been used to fabricate core build-ups on vital posterior teeth that are to be restored with an indirect restoration (1)(2)(3). Most of these materials were not specifically developed for the purpose of build-ups, but due to their physical properties have found applications in this procedure (4,5).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of a Retentive Shoulder Design to Prevent Early Failure of Three Core Build-Ups

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the influence of a retentive shoulder design to prevent early failure of three resin composite build-ups on molars. Ninety-six intact extracted human maxillary third molars were assigned to two groups (n=48) based on occlusal, buccal cusps only and all cusps reduction. The groups were divided into two subgroups: pin retained and non-pin retained build-ups resulting in four groups (n=24), according the cusps reduction: pin retained/partial, pin retained/complete, non-pin retained/partial, non-pin retained/complete. Occlusal reduction was 3 mm with a semi-lunar retentive shoulder of 3 mm and an axial wall height of 1.5 mm. Groups were restored using a microhybrid, flowable or titanium reinforced resin composite. Modified self-curing acrylic resin provisional crowns were fabricated, cemented with non-eugenol temporary cement and thermal cycled. An instron machine applied tension to the provisional crowns parallel to the long axis of the tooth until dislodgement. A three-way analysis of variance was conducted on the influence of the variables on the retention of the core build-up. Ninety-three build-ups were retained under tensile load, while three core build-ups without pins were dislodged. Three-way analysis of variance showed no statistically significant difference between core build-ups using a retentive shoulder and pin retained core build-ups when tested under tensile load. With the advent of adhesive systems, increased surface area and retentive shoulder design can provide a retentive core foundation to prevent early failures of core build-ups during indirect restoration fabrication which will contribute to the longevity of final restorations.

show abstract

Evaluation of occlusal fracture resistance of three different core materials using the Nayyar core technique

Cited by 9 publications

References 9 publications

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials

Zirconia as A Core Material - A Literature Review

Influence of a Retentive Shoulder Design to Prevent Early Failure of Three Core Build-Ups

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About