Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with glass ionomer-composite resin systems

Joynt, Robert B.; Davis, Elaine L.; Wieczkowski, G; Williams, D. A.

doi:10.1016/0022-3913(89)90041-3

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The majority of the studies done on tooth fracture involve in vitro load tests. Teeth are prepared and restored with various materials, or not restored, and subject to mechanical loading until the tooth fractures 22,23,53,55–62 . These studies produced mixed results when comparing the strength of teeth restored with either bonded or nonbonded restorations.…”

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cracked Teeth: A Review of the Literature

Lubisich

Hilton

Ferracane

2010

J Esthet Restor Dent

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Treatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cracked Teeth: A Review of the Literature

Lubisich

Hilton

Ferracane

2010

J Esthet Restor Dent

131

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Removal of tooth structure via cavity preparation has been shown to weaken teeth and increase their susceptibility to fracture[1],[2]. Studies on the weakening of teeth by mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity preparations and the effect of restorations in strengthening the remnant tissue have been conducted experimentally[3]-[5].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with modern restorative materials

Hamouda¹,

Shehata

2011

Journal of Biomedical Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We studied the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with recent restorative materials. Fifty maxillary premolars were divided into five groups: Group 1 were unprepared teeth; Group 2 were teeth prepared without restoration; Group 3 were teeth restored with tetric ceram HB; Group 4 were teeth restored with InTen S; and Group 5 were teeth restored with Admira. The samples were tested using a universal testing machine. Peak loads at fracture were recorded. The teeth restored with Admira had the highest fracture resistance followed by those restored with InTen-S and tetric ceram HB. Prepared, unrestored teeth were the weakest group. There was a significant difference between the fracture resistance of intact teeth and the prepared, unrestored teeth. There was also a significant difference among the tested restorative materials. Teeth restored with Admira showed no significant difference when compared with the unprepared teeth. It was concluded that the teeth restored with Admira exhibited the highest fracture resistance.

show abstract

“…Also Glass ionomer cements are used for a variety of purposes, including cavity lining, crown buildups, restorations, cementations of castings and also the glass ionomer-metal reinforced materials have become a viable alternative for selected crown buildups. Jyont et al [7] stated that with the introduction of glass ionomer cement as a base material for cavity preparation, the potential exists to strengthen the remaining tooth structure by means of a chemical bond as well as mechanical interlocks. GIC is one of the few dental materials available that can bond chemically to both enamel and dentin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%