EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES

Mehmet Sami Güler

doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473897

EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES

Abstract

Aim: The aim of present study was to assess the stress distribution of different restorative materials applied in a Class V cavity by finite element analysis.

Material and Methods: A 3D tooth model of a maxillary molar tooth was created for present study. The cavity was created in the computer model. Study groups were created according to four different restorative materials (Group I: a hybrid resin-based composite, Group II: a flowable resin composite, Group III: a compomer, and Group IV: resin-modified glass ionomer cement). The von Mises stress distribution was evaluated loading of 400 N.

Results: It was detected that the highest stress in Group II (301.21 MPa). However, it was observed that the lowest stress in Group I (235.74 MPa).

Conclusion: Within the limitations of our study, the lowest stress distribution for Class V cavity was obtained in the hybrid composite resin.

Keywords: Finite element analysis, restorative materials, stress distribution

SINIF V KAVİTELERDE FARKLI RESTORATİF MATERYALLERİN STRES DAĞILIMININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

ÖZ

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı sonlu elemanlar analizi ile Sınıf V kavitede uygulanan farklı restoratif materyallerin stres dağılımını değerlendirmektir.

Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışma için bir maksiller sol birinci molar dişin üç boyutlu diş modeli oluşturuldu. Kavite bilgisayar ortamında hazırlandı. Dört farklı restoratif materyale göre çalışma grupları (Grup I: hibrid kompozit rezin, Grup II: akıcı kompozit rezin, Grup III: kompomer ve Grup IV: rezin modifiye cam iyonomer siman) oluşturuldu. 400 N’luk yük uygulanarak Von Mises stres dağılımı değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: En yüksek stres Grup II’de (301,21 MPa) tespit edidi. Bununla birlikte, en düşük stres Grup I’de (235,74 MPa) gözlendi.

Sonuç: Çalışmamızın sınırları dahilinde, Sınıf V kaviteler için en düşük stres dağılımı hibrit kompozit rezinde elde edilmiştir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Sonlu elemanlar analizi, restoratif materyaller, stres dağılımı

Keywords

Finite element analysis,restorative materials

References

1. No authors listed. Oral health in America: a report of the Surgeon General. J Calif Dent Assoc 2000; 28: 685-95.
2. Lima YB, Cury JA. Seasonal variation of fluoride intake by children in a subtropical region. Caries Res 2003; 37: 335-8.
3. Ana PA, Bachmann L, Zezell DM. Lasers effects on enamel for caries prevention. Laser Physics 2006; 16: 865-75.
4. Rodrigues LKA, Santos MN, Pereira D, Assaf AV, Pardi V. Carbon dioxide laser in dental caries prevention. J Dent 2004; 32: 531-40.
5. Cortellini D, Canale A, Giordano A, Bergantini B, Bergantini D. The combined use of all-ceramic and conventional metal-ceramic restorations in the rehabilitation of severe tooth wear. Quint Dent Technol 2005; 28: 205-14.
6. Lee HE, Lin CL, Wang CH, Cheng CH, Chang CH. Stresses at the cervical lesion of maxillary premolar-a finite element investigation. J Dent 2002; 30: 283-90.
7. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A. Class I and Class II restorations of resin composite: an FEM analysis of the influence of modulus of elasticity on stresses generated by occlusal loading. Dent Mater 2008; 24: 600-5.
8. Güler MS, Şen S, Bayındır YZ, Güler Ç. İnsan dişi kaplamalarinda kullanilan farkli özelliklerdeki yapiştirici simanlarin gerilme dağilimina etkilerinin sonlu elemanlar yöntemi ile incelenmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg 2012; 22: 31-9.

9. Guler MS, Guler C, Cakici F, Cakici EB, Sen S. Finite element analysis of thermal stress distribution in different restorative materials used in Class V cavities. Niger J Clin Pract 2016; 19: 30-4.
10. Folwaczny M, Loher C, Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Hinkel R. Toothcolored filling materials for the restoration of cervical lesions: a 24- month follow- up study. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 251-8.
11. Vasudeva G, Bogra P, Nikhil V, Singh V. Effect of occlusal restoration on stresses around Class V restoration interface: a finite-element study. Indian J Dent Res 2011; 22: 295-302.
12. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. The effect of interfacial failure around a Class V composite restoration analysed by the finite element method. J Oral Rehabil 2000; 27: 111-6.
13. Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. The effect of cuspal flexure on a buccal Class V restoration: a finite element study. J Dent 1998; 26: 361-7.
14. N S, N M, Shetty A, Kumari A, DN N. Finite element analysis of stress concentration in Class V restorations of four groups of restorative materials in mandibular premolar. J Conserv Dent 2008; 11: 121-6.
15. Yaman SD, Sahin M, Aydin C. Finite element analysis of strength characteristics of various resin based restorative materials in Class V cavities. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30: 630-41.
16. Gurbuz T, Sengul F, Altun C. Finite element stress analysis of short-post core and over restorations prepared with different restorative materials. Dent Mater J 2008; 27: 499-507.
17. Hood JAA. Biomechanic of intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J 1991; 41: 25-32.
18. Amore R, Pagani C, Youssef MN, Anauate Netto C, Lewgoy HR. Polymerization shrinkage evaluation of three packable composite resins using a gas pycnometer. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003; 17: 273-7.
19. Manhart J, Garcia-Godoy F, Hickel R. Direct posterior restorations: clinical results and new developments. Dent Clin North Am 2002; 46: 303-39.
20. Sparrius O, Grossman ES. Marginal leakage of composite resin restorations in combination with dentinal and enamel bonding agents. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 61: 678-84.
21. Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ Jr. Sturdevant’s Art and Science of Operative Dentistry. 5 ed. St Louis; Mosby: 2006. p. 245-79.
22. Sarrett DC. Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 9-20.
23. Mclean JW, Nicholson JW, Wilson AD. Proposed nomenclature for glass-ionomer dental cements and related materials. Quintessence Int 1994; 25: 587-9.
24. Hickel R, Dasch W, Janda R, Tyas M, Anusavice K. New direct restorative materials. FDI commission project. Int Dent J 1998; 48: 3-16.
25. De Magalhäes CS, Serra MC, Rodrigues Jr AL. Volumetric microleakage assessment of glass-ionomer-resin composite hybrid materials. Quintessence Int 1999; 30: 117-21.
26. Brackett WW, Dib A, Brackett MG, Reyes AA, Estrada BE. Two-year clinical performance of Class V resin-modified glass ionomer and resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2003; 28: 477-81.
27. Tortopidis D, Lyons MF, Baxendale RH, Gilmour WH. The variability of bite force measurement between sessions, in different positions within the dental arch. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25: 681–6.
28. Bakke M, Michler L, Moller E. Occlusal control of mandibular elevator muscles. Scand J Dent Res 1992; 100: 284–91.
29. Fu G, Deng F, Wang L, Ren. The three-dimension finite element analysis of stress in posterior tooth residual root restored with postcore crown. Dent Traumatol 2010; 26: 64-9.
30. Sengul F, Gurbuz T, Sengul S. Finite element analysis of different restorative materials in primary teeth restorations. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2014; 15: 317-22

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Mehmet Sami Güler
0000-0003-0414-7707

Publication Date

October 14, 2018

Submission Date

December 12, 2017

Acceptance Date

April 19, 2018

Published in Issue

Year 2018 Volume: 28 Number: 4

DOI

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473897

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA36AL24HR

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Güler, M. S. (2018). EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, 28(4), 518-523. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473897

AMA

1.Güler MS. EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;28(4):518-523. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473897

Chicago

Güler, Mehmet Sami. 2018. “EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 (4): 518-23. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473897.

EndNote

Güler MS (October 1, 2018) EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28 4 518–523.

IEEE

[1]M. S. Güler, “EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES”, Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 4, pp. 518–523, Oct. 2018, doi: 10.17567/ataunidfd.473897.

ISNAD

Güler, Mehmet Sami. “EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi 28/4 (October 1, 2018): 518-523. https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.473897.

JAMA

1.Güler MS. EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018;28:518–523.

MLA

Güler, Mehmet Sami. “EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES”. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, vol. 28, no. 4, Oct. 2018, pp. 518-23, doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473897.

Vancouver

1.Mehmet Sami Güler. EVALUATION OF STRESS DISTRIBUTION OF DIFFERENT RESTORATIVE MATERIALS IN CLASS V CAVITIES. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2018 Oct. 1;28(4):518-23. doi:10.17567/ataunidfd.473897