Fracture resistance and flexural strength of endodontically treated teeth restored by different short fiber resin composites: a preclinical study

Abstract

Aim To evaluate the effect of using different short fiber-reinforced resin composites on fracture resistance and flexural strength of endodontically treated tooth and compare it with nano-filled resin composite. Methods Sixty human premolars were used for the fracture resistance test. Root canals were sequentially enlarged using a Pro-taper system from SX to F3 and obturated with Gutta-percha. Mesio-Occluso-Distal (MOD) cavities were prepared in all teeth. Teeth were then divided into 3 groups (n = 20 each) based on the type of resin composite. Group 1: Alert fiber-reinforced resin composite, Group 2: EverX Flow fiber-reinforced resin composite, and Group 3: Z350 nano-filled resin composite. Each group were subjected to a load till fracture using a universal testing machine to measure the fracture resistance. For the flexural strength test, 10 specimens from each material were prepared and 3- point bending tests were performed. The results of both tests were analyzed by using Weibull analysis. Results Teeth restored with Ever X fiber-reinforced resin composite conveyed the highest significant fracture resistance and flexural strength value when compared to the other two materials. Conclusions Short Fiber-reinforced resin composite can be considered a better choice for the restoration of MOD cavities in endodontically treated teeth.

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth with Class II Restorations Restored with New Short Fiber-reinforced Composite: An in-vitro study

“…The results of this study showed that the group of Ever X Flow had highest fracture resistance with no signi cant difference when compared with packable owable composite group, this result approved many other studies [19] [21], on contrary, many studies showed signi cant difference between reinforced composite -which had the highest fracture resistance-and other types of composites [5] [18], these difference with this study can be substantiated, on one hand, of the variation of restoration materials used in various studies, for example, farhanny et al study had three groups two of them used conventional bulk-ll composite and the third one was Ever X Posterior, whereas this study used Ever X Flow composite and compared it with one type of bulk-ll owable composite, on the other hand, of the difference coronal cavities design, lassila et al study evaluate the fracture behavior of direct composite restorations made with two different composite core materials, whereas, MOD traditional preparation cavities used in this study.…”

Biomimetic approach to strengthen the incisal fracture composite build-up: an in vitro study

“…However this technique pose a high risk of debonding in case of minor injuries [ 17 ]. hence the anterior restorative material should not only be esthetic and but also able to endure the impact forces during re-trauma [ 18 ]. In the past, attempts have been made to improve the load-bearing capacity of restoration by using different bonding systems and adhesive resins.…”