Citation Information :
Ramandeep, Dhillon JS, Passi S, Raghav, Chhabra A. Effect of Reinforcement on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Molars by Various Bonded Restorations - An In Vitro Study. 2015; 3 (2):103-111.
Objective: To compare and evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars reinforced with various bonded restorations and to study the type of fractures in various restorations.
Methods: Forty extracted mandibular molars were endodontically treated. MOD (Mesio-Occluso-Distal) cavities were prepared and Mesio-Buccal cusp was reduced in all to provide cuspal coverage. All the teeth were then divided into 4 groups. The cavities in group 1(control) were filled with high copper amalgam. Group 2 was restored with direct resin composite. In group 3 after the priming and bonding procedures as in group 2, cavity surfaces were coated with flowable resin composite. Before curing a piece of polyethylene ribbon fiber was cut and coated with adhesive resin and was embedded inside the flowable composite. The resin composite was cured with visible light cure (VLC) gun. For group 4, restorations were done according to the recommendations provided by the manufacturers of SR Adoro (Ivoclar-Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) composite material. Compressive fracture strength test was performed after at least 24 hours of the fabrication of the specimens, by application of compressive loading in a Universal testing machine, applied on the occlusal aspect of each specimen with a steel bar. The mean loads necessary to fracture were recorded in Newton and the results were statistically analyzed.
Results: Group 4 (indirect composite inlay) had the greater fracture resistance and group 1(Amalgam) had the poorest. Difference between group 1 and 3, group 1 and 4, group 2 and 4 were statistically significant. No statistically significant difference was found between group 1 and 2, group 2 and 3, group 3 and 4. Predominant type of fracture in group 1 and 3 was fracture of tooth below cemento enamel junction at tooth restoration interface without mesio buccal cusp involvement. In group 2 and 4, predominant fractures were of tooth below cemento enamel junction through center of restoration without mesio-buccal cusp involvement.
Cobankara FK, Unlu N, Cetin AR, Ozcan HB. The Effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars. Operative Dentistry 2008; 33: 526-33.
Panitvisai P, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. Journal of Endodontics 1995; 21: 57-61.
Cavel WT, Kelsey WP, Blankenau RJ. An in vivo study of cuspal fracture. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1985; 53: 38-41.
Hurmuzlu F, Kiremitci A, Serper A, Altundasar E, Siso SH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003; 29: 838-40.
Smith CT, Schuman N. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A guide for the restorative dentist. Quintessence Internationale 1997; 28: 457-62.
Rodrigues FB, Paranhos MPG, Spohr AM, Oshima HMS, Carlini B, Burnett Jr LH. Fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth restored with glass fibre bundles. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 356-62.
Opdam NJM, Bronkhorst EM, Roeters JM. Longevity and reasons for failure of sandwich and total etch posterior composite resin restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2007; 9: 469-75.
Sorrentino R, Salameh Z, Zarone F. Effect of post retained composite restoration of MOD preparations on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2007; 9: 49-56.
Gelb MN, Barouch E, Simonsen RJ. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II prepared and restored premolars. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1986; 55: 184-86.
Mccullock AJ, Smith BGN. In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. British Dental Journal 1986; 161: 450-52.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M. The Effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 73-80.
Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP. Clinical evaluation of fibre–reinforced fixed bridges. Journal of American Dental Association 2002; 133: 1524-34.
Garoushi SA, Ballo AM, Lassila LVJ, Vallitu PK. Fracture resistance of fragmented incisal edges restored with fibre reinforced composite. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2006; 8: 91-95.
Meiers JC, Kazemi RB, Donadio M. The influence of fibre reinforcement of composites on shear bond strengths to enamel. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2003; 89: 388-93.
Belli S, Orucoglu H, Yildirim C, Eskitasciglu G. The Effect of fibre placement or flowable resin lining on micro leakage in class II adhesive restorations. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2007; 9: 175-94.
Fonseca RB, Fernandes–neto AJ, Corer-sobrinho L. The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory–processed composite resin restorations. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2007; 98: 277-84.
Bader JD, Shugars DA, Martin JA. Risk indicators for posterior tooth fracture. Journal of American Dental Association 2004; 135: 883-92.
Joynt RB, Wieczkowski G, Klickowski R. Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1987;57:431-35.
Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989; 15: 512-16.
Hurmuzlu F, Serper A, Siso SH. In vitro fracture resistance of root filled teeth using new generation dentine bonding adhesives. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 770-73.
Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Reconstruction of non vital teeth using direct fibre reinforced composite resin: A pilot clinical study. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2009; 11: 71-78.
Oskoee PA, Ajami AA, Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Sadjadi J. Theeffect of threecompositefibre insertion techniquesonfracture resistance of root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2009;35:413-16.
Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament stimulation on fracture resistance tests. Brazilian Oral Research 2005; 19: 11-16.
Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Watts DC. The Effect of cavity wall taper on fracture resistance of teeth restored with resin composite inlays. Operative Dentistry 1993; 18: 230-36.
Burke FJT, Wilson NHF, Watts DC. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect composite resins: The effect of alternative luting procedures. Quintessence Internationale 1994; 25: 269-75.
Stele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars J Endod 1999; 25: 6-9.
Hitz T, Ozcan M, Gohring TN. Marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of root canal treated mandibular molars with intracoronal restorations: Effect of Thermo cycling and mechanical loading. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2010; 12: 279-86.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement Effect of polyethylene fibre in Root filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 136-42.
Coelho–de-souza FH, Camacho GB, Demarco FF, Powers JM. Fracture resistance and gap formation of MOD restorations: Influence of restorative technique, bevel preparation and water storage. Operative Dentistry 2008; 33: 37-43.
Plotino G, Buono L, Grande NM, Lamorgese V, Soma FC. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosth Dent 2008; 99: 225-32.
Soares CJ, Martins RM. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect- composite and ceramic inlay systems. Quintessence Internationale 2004; 35: 281-86.
Soares PV, Santos-filho PCF, Martins LRM, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behaviour of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: Fracture resistance and fracture mode. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2008; 99: 30-37.