FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF THE PRIMARY SECOND MOLARS PULPOTOMIZED BY VARIOUS AGENTS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY

Year 2020, Volume: 30 Issue: 4, 564 - 570, 15.10.2020

Sultan Keleş

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.768626

Cited By: 1

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of various pulpotomy materials on the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary second molars.
Materials and Methods: Hundred extracted primary second molars were randomly divided into five groups as follows: Control group (had no treatment), Zinc oxide-eugenol group (pulpotomized with zinc oxide eugenol), ProRoot MTA group (pulpotomized with ProRoot MTA), RetroMTA group (pulpotomized with RetroMTA), and Biodentine group (pulpotomized with Biodentine). The pulpotomized teeth were restored with compomer resin. All samples were then subjected to fracture resistance test using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey’s test. The level of significance was accepted at p<0.05.
Results: Control group had the highest fracture resistance value (1191.57 ± 121.09 N) and Zinc oxide-eugenol group had the lowest fracture resistance value (510.87±135.00). There was statistically significant difference between fracture resistances of the groups (p<0.001). The difference between Zinc oxide-eugenol group and RetroMTA group; Zinc oxide-eugenol group and ProRoot MTA group; ProRoot MTA group and Biodentine group was not statistically significant (p>0.05). However, Biodentine group showed significantly higher fracture resistance as compared to Zinc oxide-eugenol group and RetroMTA group (p<0.05).
Conclusions: The fracture resistance of primary second molars pulpotomized with ProRoot MTA and Biodentine was higher compared to the teeth pulpotomized with zinc oxide eugenol and RetroMTA.
Key words: pulpotomy, tooth deciduous, fracture resistance, compomers
ÇEŞİTLİ MATERYALLERLE PULPOTOMİ YAPILMIŞ İKİNCİ SÜT AZI DİŞLERİNİN KIRILMA DAYANIMLARI: İN-VİTRO BİR ÇALIŞMA
Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı tipteki pulpotomi materyallerinin pulpotomi yapılmış süt azı dişlerinin kırılma dayanımları üzerindeki etkisini araştırmaktır.
Gereç ve Yöntem: Yüz adet çekilmiş süt ikinci azı dişi rastgele beş gruba ayrılmıştır: Kontrol grubu (herhangi bir tedavi yapılmamıştır), Çinko oksit öjenol grubu (çinko oksit ojenol ile pulpotomi yapılan), ProRoot MTA grubu (ProRoot MTA ile pulpotomi yapılan), RetroMTA grubu (RetroMTA ile pulpotomi yapılan), Biodentin grubu (Biodentin ile pulpotomi yapılan). Pulpotomi yapılan dişler, kompomer ile restore edilmiştir. Tüm örnekler universal test cihazı kullanılarak kırılma dayanımı testine tabi tutulmuştur. Veriler tek yönlü ANOVA ve post hoc Tukey testi kullanılarak analiz edilmiştir. Anlamlılık düzeyi p <0,05 olarak kabul edilmiştir.
Bulgular: Grupların kırılma dayanımları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı fark bulunmuştur (p<0,001). Kırılma dayanımı kontrol grubunda, en yüksek bulunurken (1191,57±121,09 N), Çinko oksit öjenol grubunda en düşük bulunmuştur (510,87±135.00). Çinko oksit öjenol grubu ve RetroMTA grubu; Çinko oksit öjenol grubu ve ProRoot MTA grubu ; ProRoot MTA grubu ve Biodentin grubu arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulunmamıştır (p> 0,05). Bununla birlikte, Biodentine grubu, Çinko oksit öjenol grubu ve RetroMTA grubu ile karşılaştırıldığında kırılmaya karşı daha yüksek dayanım göstermiştir (p <0,05)
Sonuç: ProRoot MTA ve Biodentin ile pulpotomi tedavisi uygulanmış ikinci süt azı dişlerinin kırılma dayanımları, çinko oksit öjenol ve RetroMTA ile pulpotomize edilmiş dişlerden daha yüksektir.
Anahtar kelimeler: pulpotomi, süt dişi , kırılma dayanımı , kompomer

Keywords

pulpotomy, tooth deciduous

References

• 1. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, Fuks AB, Fayle SA, Moffat MA. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2006;16:15-23.
• 2. Mohammad N, Pattanaik S, Chennupati S, Ankireddy S, Animireddy D. Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored with Various Tooth Bonded Restorative Material: An In Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health. 2016;8:227-31.
• 3. Blaser PK, Lund MR, Cochran MA, Potter RH. Effect of designs of Class 2 preparations on resistance of teeth to fracture. Oper Dent. 1983;8:6-10.
• 4. Pantvisai P, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1995;21:57-61.
• 5. Franchi M, Breschi L, Ruggeri O. Cusp fracture resistance in composite–amalgam combined restorations. J Dent. 1999;27:47-52.
• 6. Mirzaei M, Ghavam M, Rostamzadeh T. Reinforcement of unsupported enamel by restorative materials and dentin bonding agents: an in vitro study. J Dent. 2010;7:84.
• 7. Patras M, Doukoudakis, S. Class II composite restorations and proximal concavities: clinical implications and management. Oper Dent.2013;38:119-124.
• 8. Kang CM, Kim SH, Shin Y, Lee HS, Lee JH, Kim GT, Song JS. A randomized controlled trial of ProRoot MTA, OrthoMTA and RetroMTA for pulpotomy in primary molars. Oral Dis. 2015;21:785-91.
• 9. Kaup M, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. An in vitro study of different material properties of Biodentine compared to ProRoot MTA. Head Face Med. 2015;11:1-8.
• 10. Torabinejad M, Hong CU, McDonald F, Ford TP. Physical and chemical properties of a new root-end filling material. J Endod. 1995;21:349-53.
• 11. American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. Guideline on pediatric restorative dentistry. Pediatr Dent 2013;35:226.
• 12. Guelmann M, Bookmyer KL, Villalta P, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage of restorative techniques for pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child 2004;71:209–11.
• 13. Kirzioglu Z, Gungor OE, Ciftci ZZ. Evaluation of the restoration success of endodontic therapy of the primary molars. Eur J Dent. 2011;5: 415-22.
• 14. Yılmaz Y, Gurbuz T, Eyuboglu O, Belduz N. Poliasit-modifiye resin (kompomer) ve resin modifiye cam ionomer restoratif materyallerin farklı yöntemlerle tamirinin in vitro değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi. 2002;12:6-13.
• 15. Al-Dahan ZA. Fracture Strength of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: An In-Vitro Evaluation of Four Restorative Approaches. J College Dent. 2002;35:101.
• 16. Mazhari F, Mehrabkhani M, Talebi M, Gharaghahi M. Fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molar restored with extensive class ii amalgam restorations. J Dent Tehran Uni Med Sci. 2008; 5:77-82.
• 17. El-Kalla IH, García-Godoy F. Fracture strength of adhesively restored pulpotomized primary molars. J Dent Child. 1999;66:238-42.
• 18. Malekafzalı B, Ghassemı A, Mohtavıpour S, Fotouhı AF, Goodarzı N, Fereydoonı MR. In Vitro Investigation Of The Fracture Strength Of Pulpotomized Primary Molars Restored With Glass Ionomer, Amalgam And Composite Resin With And Without Cusp Reduction. J Dent School. 2013;31:58-64.
• 19. Mohammad N, Pattanaik S, Reddy TB, Animireddy D, Ankireddy S. (2019). Comparative Evaluation of the Fracture Strength of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12:5-9.
• 20. Song M, Kang M, Kim HC, Kim E. A randomized controlled study of the use of ProRootmineral trioxide aggregate and Endocem as direct pulp capping materials. J Endod. 2015;41:11-15.
• 21. Nainar SH. Compomers may be an Alternative Material for Class II Restorations in the Primary Dentition. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2011;11:29-30.
• 22. Andersson-Wenckert IE, Folkesson UH, van Dijken JW. Durability of a polyacid-modified composite resin (compomer) in primary molars: a multicenter study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1997;55:255-60.
• 23. Passi S, Pandit I, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta, M. A comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars restored with various restorative materials. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2007;31:164-66.
• 24. Omer H, Hammouda H, Shalan H, Abdellatif A. Fracture resistance of puplotomized primary molars restored with various restorative materials. Acta Sci Dent Sci. 2019;3:98-104.
• 25. Kamegai T, Tatsuki T, Nagano H, Inaba D. A determination of bite force in northern Japanese children. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:53-57.
• 26. Rentes AM, Gavião MBD, Amaral JR. Bite force determination in children with primary dentition. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:1174-180.
• 27. Maki K, Nishioka T, Morimoto A, Naito M, Kimura M. A study on the measurement of occlusal force and masticatory efficiency in school age Japanese children. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2001;11:281-85.