Fracture Resistance of Weakened Premolars Restored with Sonically - Activated Composite , Bulk - Filled and Incrementally - Filled Composites : A Comparative in Vitro Study

Fahad, Fatima; Majeed, Manhal A.

doi:10.12816/0015250

Cited by 13 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The results found are consistent with a study by Vahid et al comparing the fracture resistance of MOD cavities in maxillary premolars restored with bulk fill RBC or Nano composite (28) . Also, another study by Fahad and Majeed (29) , by Baban and Atiyah (30) and by Toz et al (31) were in agreement with the found results. They all found that bulk fill composites act similar to nanohybrid RBC in terms of load bearing capacity when used in MOD cavities and can be used reliably as nanohybrid RBCs.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Fracture Resistance of maxillary premolars Restored with Different Fiber-reinforced Composites: An In Vitro Study

Taher

Haridy

2019

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars weakened by MOD cavities and restored with nanohybrid composite, bulk fill composite and two fiber reinforced composites. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 sound maxillary first premolars with standardized MOD cavities were used for this study, except for intact control. Specimens were randomly divided into six groups (n=10); G1: sound premolars (negative control); G2: unrestored teeth (positive control); G3: MOD cavities restored with nanohybrid composite. G4: MOD cavities restored with sonicfill bulk fill composite.; G5: MOD cavities restored with nanohybrid resin composite with glass fibers embedded into it from bucco-lingually.; G6: MOD cavities restored with short-fiber reinforced resin composite. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling between 5Cº to 55Cº in water bath for a total of 2000 cycle with 10 seconds dwell time. Then specimens were individually mounted on a computer-controlled material testing machine (Instron 3345) with a load cell of 5 kN and the maximum load to produce fracture in Newton (N) was recorded and statistical analysis was performed. Results: Kruskall-Wallis test and Bonferroni-corrected Mann-Whitney U test showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the different study groups (P=0.000). Positive control and short fiber reinforced composite groups yielded the significantly highest mean values; followed by nanohybrid resin composite, sonic fill bulk fill composite and fiber reinforced composite groups that were statistically similar. While the negative control had the significantly lowest mean value. Conclusion: The use of short fiber reinforced resin composite as restoration significantly increased the fracture strength of premolars with MOD restorations.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Fracture Resistance of maxillary premolars Restored with Different Fiber-reinforced Composites: An In Vitro Study

Taher

Haridy

2019

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, SonicFill 2 provides greater adaptation to the cavity walls, and thus reducing the size and incidence of voids located along the line angles and the margin of the cavity and minimizes gap formation. Therefore, the possibility of cracking could be reduced to achieve enhanced fracture resistance [ 40 , 43 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This result might be attributed to the presence of voids or contamination between composite increments. These voids could be formed due to the porosity of the resin that comprised of oxygen and produced inhibiting zone leading to bond failures between the layers [ 43 ]. Group D reported adhesive type of failure in 37.5% specimens, cohesive failure within the tooth structure in 12.5% specimens, and cohesive failure within the restoration in 12.5% cases and mixed type of failure in rest of the 37.5% cases.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing Fracture Resistance of Restored Premolars with Novel Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study

Al-Ibraheemi

Jawad

Haider

2021

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During restorative treatment, premolars restored with resin filling materials using the conventional incremental-fill technique take longer restoration time and undermine the integrity of the tooth. The aim of this study was to assess fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types of novel bulk-fill composite resin materials. Forty-eight (n = 48) freshly extracted sound maxillary first premolars were used in this in vitro study. The teeth were divided into six groups, each having 8 specimens. Group A (positive control) was allocated for the intact teeth. For specimens in Groups B to F, a large cavity (Class-II MOD) was prepared with a standardized dimension of cavity (3 mm depth on the pulpal floor, 4 mm at the gingival seat, and 3 mm cavity width). Group B represented prepared teeth without any restoration. Group C, Group D, Group E, and Group F were restored with Tetric EvoCeram® incremental-fill (conventional), Beautifil bulk-fill, Filtek posterior bulk-fill, and SonicFill 2 bulk-fill restorative materials, respectively. All samples were finished and polished with an enhanced finishing kit and stored in distilled water for a month before the fracture resistance testing. All the samples were exposed to the axial loading (the speed of crosshead was 1 mm/min) in a computer-controlled universal testing machine (LARYEE, China) via a steel bar (6 mm in diameter) and the maximum applied force in Newton was recorded as the fracture resistance. One-way analysis of variance (SPSS 21) was used to compare the fracture resistance within the groups, and Tukey’s post hoc test was used to determine the difference between the groups. The lowest value of fracture resistance was recorded for Group B, and the highest value was recorded for Group A followed by the values of Group D, Group C, Group F, and Group E. One-way ANOVA revealed a statistically significant difference between the groups ( P < 0.05 ). Nonsignificant difference was found between the premolars restored by bulk-fill and conventional composites. Among the bulk-fill restored specimens, Beautifil restorative demonstrated significantly higher fracture resistance in comparison with the other two bulk-fill restored specimen groups (SonicFill 2 and Filtek). Bulk-fill composite such as Beautifil could be an alternative option to conventional incremental-fill composite for premolar restoration.

show abstract

“…Adhesive type of failure may be attributed to the heavy viscosity of Filtek™ Bulk fill composite, which might hinder the appropriate adaptation of the material to the cavity walls, resulting in void formation at the tooth restoration interface and Cohesive type of failure as observed may be due to the incorporation of voids or contamination between composite layers. 14…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating The Effect of pH of Dentin Bonding Agents on Dentin in Relation to the Push-Out Bond Strength of Composites in Class I Cavities in-vitro

Ganai¹,

Singh²,

Gupta³

et al. 2020

IHRJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: Today, the popularity of amalgam as restorative material has decreased due to poor esthetic characteristics and mercury contamination with composite resin materials becoming a choice among the both dentists and patients. AIM: The objective of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effect of pH of dentin bonding agents (Adper Easy Bond and Xeno V) on dentin in relation to push out bond strength of composite restored with Filtek bulk fill posterior restorative composites.MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty caries free human molars with no cracks or previous restorations were used for investigation. Standard box-type Class-I Cavities of 3.5 mm x 3.5 mm and depth of 4 mm were prepared on the occlusal surface of the molars. Teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups namely Group A, Group B of 30 teeth each, according to the dentin adhesives applied i.e Adper Easy bond and Xeno V. Two bonding agents with different pH were selected for the study. One was Adper Easy Bond with Ultra mild pH of 2.7. Other was Xeno V Self etch with strong pH of <1.3. Push-out test was performed by placing specimens within a centralizing ring to ensure a centered application of the load, resting on another ring, with a central hole slightly larger than the restoration diameter. The test was performed with a universal Testing Machine to express bond strength in mega pascals (MPa), load value in Newton (N). After testing the push-out bond strength, the samples were analyzed under a stereomicroscope.RESULTS: Adper Easy bond with an ultra mild pH 2.7 is better as compared to Xeno V Self etch with strong pH of <1.3.The most common mode of failure observed with Adper was mixed fracture and cohesive dentin fracture, while in Xeno V, adhesive failure between resin and dentin and cohesive resin fracture was observed. The mean maximum force was significantly more among Adper compared to Xeno V.CONCLUSION: Comparison of dentin bonding agents in this in vitro study revealed that the push out bond strength of Adper Easy performed better than Xeno V.

show abstract

Fracture Resistance of Weakened Premolars Restored with Sonically - Activated Composite , Bulk - Filled and Incrementally - Filled Composites : A Comparative in Vitro Study

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Fracture Resistance of maxillary premolars Restored with Different Fiber-reinforced Composites: An In Vitro Study

Fracture Resistance of maxillary premolars Restored with Different Fiber-reinforced Composites: An In Vitro Study

Assessing Fracture Resistance of Restored Premolars with Novel Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study

Evaluating The Effect of pH of Dentin Bonding Agents on Dentin in Relation to the Push-Out Bond Strength of Composites in Class I Cavities in-vitro

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About