Fracture Strength of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars Restored with Posterior Composite or Amalgam

Abstract

Restoration of endodontically treated teeth hasalways been a challange. The purpose of this studyis to compare the fracture strength of maxillary premolar teeth restored with two different materials amalgam and posterior composite . In this study,30 extracted caries free maxillary premolars wereselected. The teeth were divided into three groups of10 teeth each. The root canals of the teeth in Group1 and 2 were enlarged to a size of 35# and obturated with gutta percha cones and AH26 root canalsealer using lateral condensation technique. Thengutta percha was removed from the root canal to2mm below the cemento-enamel junction with around bur. Group 1 was restored with high-copperamalgam and Group 2 was restored with posteriorcomposite resin. The teeth in Group 3 had no treatment. A universal testing machine Instron wasused for mechanical test. All teeth were loaded untilfracture was occured. The mean force for Group 1is 1125.40 N; for Group 2, 983.62N and for group3, 2111.58N. No statistically significant differencewas found between the group 1 and group 2 p>0.05 , however the difference between these twogroups and the group 3 was significant p

Keywords

• amalgam, posterior composite,fracture strength

POSTERİOR KOMPOZİT VE AMALGAMLA RESTORE EDİLMİŞ ENDODONTİK TEDAVİLİ MAKSİLLER PREMOLAR DİŞLERİN KIRILMAYA DAYANIKLILIĞI

Abstract

Endodontik tedavi görmüş dişlerin restorasyonu, restoratif diş hekimliğinin en çok tartışılan konular›ndan biri olmuştur. Bu çal›şman›n amac›, endodontik tedavi görmüş ve iki farkl› tipte materyalle restore edilmiş maksiller premolar dişlerin k›r›lma dayan›kl›l›ğ›n›n karş›laşt›r›lmas›d›r. Bu çal›şmada 30 adet çürüksüz insan dişi kullan›lm›şt›r. Dişler her biri 10 dişten oluşan rastgele 3 gruba ayr›lm›şt›r. İlk iki gruptaki dişlerin kanallar› #35’ya kadar genişletilip kon-gütta ve AH 26 ile lateral kondensasyon tekniği kullan›larak doldurulmuştur. Ard›ndan gütta perka minesement birleşiminin 2 mm alt›nda olacak şekilde bir rond frezle kald›r›lm›şt›r. Grup 1, yüksek bak›rl› amalgam; Grup 2, posterior kompozitle restore edilmiş; Grup 3’e kontrol grubu ise herhangi bir dental işlem uygulanmam›şt›r. Mekanik testler için universal test ayg›t› kullan›lm›şt›r. Tüm dişlere k›r›lma oluşana kadar kuvvet uygulanm›şt›r. Grup 1 için ortalama kuvvet 1125.40 N, Grup 2 için 983.62 N ve Grup 3 için 2110.58 N dur. Grup 1 ve grup 2 aras›nda istatistiksel olarak anlaml› bir fark bulunamazken p>0.05 , bu gruplar›n k›r›lma dayan›kl›l›ğ› Grup 3’ten anlaml› şekilde düşük bulunmuştur p

Keywords

• Posterior kompozit, amalgam, kırılma dayanıklılığı

References

1. Trope M, Langer I, Maltz D, Tornstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol 1986; 2: 35-8.
2. Ulusoy N, Nayyar A, Morris CF, Fairhurst CW. Fracture durability of restored functional cusps on maxillary nonvital premolar teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66:330-5.
3. Hürmüzlü F, Kiremitçi A, Serper A, Altundaşar E, Siso ŞH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003; 29: 838-40.
4. Hachmeister KA, Dunn WJ, Murchison DF, Larsen RB. Fracture strength of amalgam crowns with repaired endodontic access. Operative Dent 2002; 27: 254-8.
5. Foley J, Saunders E, Saunders WP. Strength of core build-up materials in endodontically treated teeth. Am J Dent. 1997; 10:166-72.
6. Yamada Y, Tsubota Y, Fukushima S. Effect of restoration method on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:94-8.
7. Oliveira FC, Denehy GE, Boyer DB. Fracture resistance of endodontically prepared teeth using various restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1987; 115: 57-60.
8. Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard LA. An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980; 43: 511-5.

9. Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, pre- pared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J 1991; 41: 25-32.
10. Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC. In vitro fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990; 6: 49-55.
11. Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Braem MJ, Takeuchi M, Vanhuie G et. al. Dynamic elastic mo- dulus of ‘packable’ composites. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 520-5.
12. Combe EC, Shoglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Mechanical properties of direct core- build-up materials. Dent Mater 1999; 15: 158-65.
13. Bryant RW, Mahler DB. Modulus of elas- ticity in bending of composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 56: 243-8.
14. Hansen EK. In vivo cusp fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with MOD amalgam or MOD resin fillings. Dent Mater 1988; 4: 169-73.
15. Boyer DB, Roth L. Fracture resistance of teeth with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1994; 7: 91- 4.
16. Hürmüzlü F, Serper A, Siso ŞH, Er K. In vitro fracture resistance of root-filled teeth using new-generation dentine bonding adhesives. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 770-3.
17. Görücü J, Özgünaltay G. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations.Oper Dent 2003; 28: 501- 7.
18. Belli S, Erdemir A, Özçopur M, Eski- taşçıoğlu G. The effect of fibre insertion of fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD prepa- rations restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 73-80.
19. Schatz D, Alfter G, Goz G. Fracture resis- tance of human incisors and premolars; morphologi- cal and patho-anatomical factors. Dent Traumatol 2001; 17: 167-73.
20. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodonti- cally treated teeth more brittle? J Endod 1992; 18: 332-5.
21. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997; 10: 237-41.
22. 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 Rehabil. 1990; 17: 99-105.