Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  12 (2024)
Volume  11 (2023)
Volume  10 (2022)
Volume  9 (2021)
Volume  8 (2020)
Volume  7 (2019)
Volume  6 (2018)
Volume  5 (2017)
Volume  4 (2016)
Volume  3 (2015)
Volume  2 (2014)
Volume  1 (2013)
Related articles

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( September-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fracture Resistance of Reattached Teeth: In Vitro Evaluation of Various Reattachment Techniques

Ankita Agrawal, Sandhya K Punia, Yogender Kumar, Shilpi Kushwaha, Deepak Sharma

Keywords : Chamfer, Fracture resistance, Overcontour preparation, Tooth fragment reattachment

Citation Information : Agrawal A, Punia SK, Kumar Y, Kushwaha S, Sharma D. Fracture Resistance of Reattached Teeth: In Vitro Evaluation of Various Reattachment Techniques. 2024; 12 (3):145-149.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0054

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 31-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aims and background: Fragment reattachment remains a preferred conservative treatment, offering a balance between esthetic recovery, patient satisfaction, and functionality. Understanding the reattachment technique options helps clinicians provide the best care tailored to individual cases. Materials and methods: Thirty permanent maxillary central incisors were mounted in acrylic resin and divided into 3 groups (n = 10) based on reattachment methods: Group A (Control), group B (Chamfer), group C (Overcontouring). Standardized crown fractures were simulated and reattached using a light-curable flow able composite. The specimens were stored, thermocycled, and tested for fracture resistance. Results: Intact teeth (Control) showed the highest fracture resistance (372 ± 17.45 N). Among reattached teeth, overcontouring (295.9 ± 24.00 N) performed best, followed by Chamfer (170.2 ± 28.39 N). Conclusion: None of the reattachment techniques matched the fracture resistance of intact teeth. Overcontouring yielded the best results, while the Chamfer technique is not recommended due to its low fracture resistance. Clinical significance: By understanding the strengths and limitations of various reattachment techniques, clinicians can make informed decisions to optimize both functional and esthetic outcomes for patients with anterior tooth fractures.

PDF Share
  1. Chandran R, Rayar S, Ravi AB, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of incisor fragments using simple, bevel, internal groove preparation designs and reattached with nanocomposites: An in vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2020;12(Suppl 1):S373–S377. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.JPBS_110_20.
  2. Kulkarni VK, Gadhe DE, Gavade SS, et al. Finite element analysis for fracture resistance of reattached human tooth fragment with different types of retentive preparation techniques. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;46(5):81–87. DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2022.011.
  3. Güngör HC. Management of crown-related fractures in children: An update review. Dent Traumatol 2014;30(2):88–99. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12079.
  4. Stellini E, Stomaci D, Stomaci M, et al. Fracture strength of tooth fragment reattachments with postpone bevel and over contour reconstruction. Dent Traumatol 2008;24(3):283–288. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00539.x.
  5. Srilatha JS, Chhasatia N, Rani PJ, et al. Reattachment of fractured anterior teeth-determining fracture strength using different techniques: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(1):61–65. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1096.
  6. Kaur Atwal PK, Singh R. A combined approach to restore a fractured tooth: Reattachment and composite veneering. Guident 2016;9(6):52–55.
  7. Bommanagoudar J, Chandrashekhar S, Sharma S, et al. Comparison of enamel preparations-bevel, chamfer and stair step chamfer on fracture resistance of nano filled resin composites using bulk pack technique–An in vitro study. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2019;7(23):4089–4093. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2019.853.
  8. Coelho-de-Souza FH, Rocha AD, Rubini A, et al. Influence of adhesive system and bevel preparation on fracture strength of teeth restored with composite resin. Braz Dent J 2010;21(4):327–331. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402010000400007.
  9. Nagi SM, Khadr SM. Influence of different tooth preparation and bonding techniques on the fracture resistance of tooth fragment reattachment. Biomater Investig Dent 2021;8(1):112–118. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2021.1952873.
  10. Poubel DL, Almeida JC, Dias Ribeiro AP, et al. Effect of dehydration and rehydration intervals on fracture resistance of reattached tooth fragments using a multimode adhesive. Dent Traumatol 2017;33(6):451–457. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12344.
  11. Bücher K, Neumann C, Hickel R, et al. Traumatic dental injuries at a German university clinic 2004-2008. Dent Traumatol 2013;29(2): 127–133. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2012.01149.x.
  12. Andreasen JO. Etiology and pathogenesis of traumatic dental injuries A clinical study of 1,298 cases. Scand J Dent Res 1970;78(1-4):329–342. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1970.tb02080.x.
  13. Eilert-Petersson E, Andersson L, Sorensen S. Traumatic oral vs. non-oral injuries. An epidemiological study during one year in a Swedish county. Swed Dent J 1997;21(1–2):55–68. PMID: 9178450.
  14. Andreasen JQ, Ravn JJ. Epidemiology of traumatic dental injuries to primary and permanent teeth in a Danish population sample. Int J Oral Surg 1972;1(5):235–239. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-9785(72)80042-5.
  15. Andreasen JO. Textbook and color atlas of traumatic injuries to the teeth. Munksgard: Copenhagen; 1993. pp. 155–173.
  16. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Kraul A, et al. Reattachment of fractured teeth: A review of literature regarding techniques and materials. Oper Dent 2004;29(2):226–233. PMID: 15088736.
  17. Maitin N, Maitin SN, Rastogi K, et al. Fracture tooth fragment reattachment. BMJ Case Rep 2013;2013:bcr2013009183. DOI: 10.1136/bcr-2013-009183.
  18. Garcia FC, Poubel DL, Almeida JC, et al. Tooth fragment reattachment techniques—A systematic review. Dent Traumatol 2018;34(3): 135–143. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12392.
  19. VamsiKrishna R, Madhusudhana K, Swaroopkumarreddy A, et al. Shear bond strength evaluation of adhesive and tooth preparation combinations used in reattachment of fractured teeth: An ex-vivo study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015;33(1):40–43. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.148975.
  20. Eliasson ST, Dahl JE. Effect of thermal cycling on temperature changes and bond strength in different test specimens. Biomater Investig Dent 2020;7(1):16–24. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1709470.
  21. Abdulkhayum A, Munjal S, Babaji P, et al. In-vitro evaluation of fracture strength recovery of reattached anterior fractured tooth fragment using different re-attachment techniques. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(3):208–211. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/7161.4164.
  22. Reis A, Francci C, Loguercio AD, et al. Re-attachment of anterior fractured teeth: Fracture strength using different techniques. Oper Dent 2001;26(3):287–294. PMID: 11357572.
  23. Loguercio AD, Mengarda J, Amaral R, et al. Effect of fractured or sectioned fragments on the fracture strength of different reattachment techniques. Oper Dent 2004;29(3):295–300. PMID: 15195730.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.