Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Ormocer and Nanofill Composite Resins

Abstract

The aim of this study was to measure the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with ormocer,hybrid and nanofill composite resins. Fourty sound, caries-free human maxillary premolar teeth were used. The teeth were endodontically treated and MOD cavities prepared. The prepared teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth. Each group was restored with four different restorative materials one ormocer, one nanofill, one hybrid and one high copper amalgam . Copper rings were filled with self-curing polymethylmetacrylate resin and the teeth were placed into resin up to the level of the cementoenamel junction. The copper rings with the teeth were placed into a Universal Testing Machine and the buccal walls were subjected to a slowly increasing compressive force until fracture occurred. The force of fracture of the various groups compared. Statistical analysis was performed by using one way analysis of variance ANOVA .There was no statistically significant difference between the groups. There was no difference in the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth following restoration with amalgam and composite restorative materials. Within the limits of this study we can suggest that resins used in this study are good alternative materials to amalgam

Keywords

• Fracture resistance, composite resin, ormocer

Ormoser ve nano dolduruculu kompozitlerle restore edilmiş endodontik tedavili dişlerin kırılma dirençleri

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı amalgam, ormoser,hibrit ve nano dolduruculu kompozit rezinler kullanılarak restore edilen maksiller premolar dişlerin kırılma dirençlerini ölçmektir. Bu çalışmada 40 adet çürüksüz insan maksiller premolar dişi kullanılmıştır. Dişlere kök kanal tedavisi uygulandıktan sonra MOD kaviteler hazırlanmıştır. Hazırlanan dişler her bir grupta 10 diş olmak üzere 4 gruba ayrıldı. Her bir grup farklı restoratif materyalle ormoser, nano dolduruculu kompozit, hibrit kompozit, yüksek bakırlı amalgam restore edildi. Bakır anolar kendinden polimerize olabilen polimetilmetakrilatla doldurulduktan sonra dişler mine sement seviyesine kadar bu anolara gömüldü. Bakır anolar Universal test makinesine yerleştirilerek bukkal duvarlara kırık oluşana kadar yavaşça artan kompresif güç uygulandı. Çeşitli gruplarda kırık oluşturmak için uygulanması gereken kuvvetler karşılaştırıldı. İstatistik analiz tek yönlü varyans analizi ANOVA kullanılarak yapıldı. Gruplar arasında belirgin olarak istatistik bir fark bulunmadı.Amalgam veya kompozitle restore edilmiş endodontik tedavili dişlerin kırılma dirençleri arasında belirgin bir fark bulunmadı. Bu çalışmanın sonuçları dahilinde bu çalışmada kullanılan rezin materyaller amalgam restorasyonlara göre iyi alternatifler olarak tavsiye edilebilir

Keywords

• Kırılma direnci, kompozit rezin, ormoser

References

1. Wagnild GW, Mueller KI. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co, 2002;p.765-95.
2. Courtade GL, Timmermans JJ. Pins in restorative dentistry. St. Louis: CV Mosby Co, 1971;p.145-72.
3. Qualthrough AJ,Cawte SG,Wilson NH.Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.Oper Dent 2001;26:267-72.
4. Covey DA, Moon PC. Shear bond strength of dental amalgam bonded to dentin. Am J Dent 1991;4:19-22.
5. Eakle WS, Staninec M, Lacy AM. Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:257-60.
6. Eakle WS. Increasing the resistance of teeth to fracture: bonded composite resins versus glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater 1985;1:229-30.
7. Joynt RB, Davis EL, Wieczkowski G, Willams DA. Fracture resistance of posterior teeth restored with glass ionomer-composite resin systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62:28-31.
8. Wendt SL. Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlay. Am J Dent 1991;4:10-4.

9. Eakle WS. Increasing fracture resistance of teeth: comparison of five bonded composite resins systems. Quintessence Int 1986;17:17-20.
10. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J Dent Res 1986;65:149-53.
11. Liberman R, Ben Amar A, Gontar G, Hirsh A. The effect of posterior composite restorations on the resistance of cavity walls to vertically applied occlusal loads. J Oral Reha- bil 1990;17:99-105.
12. Mackenzie DF. The reinforcing effect of mesio-occlusodistal acid-etch composite restorations on weakened posterior teeth. Br Dent J 1986;161:410-4.
13. Leinfelder KF,Radz GM, Nash RV. A report on a new condensable composite resin. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998; 19: 230-7.
14. Mitra SB,Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134:1382-90.
15. Yap AUJ, Tan CH, Chung SM. Wear behavior of new composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004; 29:269-74.
16. Trope M, Langer I, Maltz D, Tornstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986;2:35-8.
17. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10:237-41.
18. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989;68:1540-4.
19. Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999;25:6-8.
20. Trope M, Tornstad L. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars with glass ionomer cement or acid etch composite resin. J Endodon 1991;17:257-9.
21. Cavel WT, Kelsey WP, Blankenau RJ. An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. J Proshet Dent 1985;53:38-42.
22. Goering AC, Mueninghoff LA. Management of the endodontically treated tooth, I: concept for restorative designs. J Pros- thet Dent 1983;49:340-5.
23. Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:49-55.
24. Hansen EK. In vivo cusp fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with MOD amalgam or MOD resin fillings. Dent Mater 1988;4:169-73.
25. Eakle WS. Effect of thermal cycling on fracture strength and microleakage in teeth restored with a bonded composite resin. Dent Mater 1986;2:114-7.
26. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15:512-6.
27. Joynt RB, Davis EL, Wieczkowski GJr, Klackowski R, Davis EL. Effect of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:431-5.
28. Gwinnett AJ Moist versus dry dentin: its effect on shear bond strength. Am J Dent 1992;5:127-9.
29. Kanca J. Effect of resin primer solvents and surface wetness on resin composite bond strength to dentin. Am J Dent 1992;5:213-5.
30. McCabe JF, Rusby S. Dentin bonding agents characteristic bond strength as a function of dentine depth. J Dent 1992;20:225- 30.
31. Munechika T, Lizuka H, Sudo T, Nosu T, Nishiyama M, Ohashi N. Tensile bond strengths of restorative composite materials to etched human dentin. J Nihon Univ Sch Dent 1984;26:291-4.
32. Morin D, Delong R, Douglas WH. Cusp reinforcement by the acid-etch technique. J Dent Res 1984;63:1075-8.
33. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J 1994;27:281-4.
34. Hürmüzlü F, Kiremitçi A, Serper A, Altundaşar E, Siso Ş. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with Ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003;29:838-40.