B Sagsen1, B Aslan. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry University of Erciyes, Kayseri, Turkey. burakasagsen@erciyes.edu.tr
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the fracture resistance of root filled maxillary premolars restored with different techniques. METHODOLOGY:One hundred and twenty single-rooted maxillary premolar teeth were divided randomly into six groups of 20 teeth and subjected to the following procedures: group 1: intact teeth. Group 2: endodontic access cavities prepared. Group 3: MOD cavities were prepared, root canals were filled and no restoration was placed. Group 4: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored conventionally with amalgam. Group 5: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored with amalgam using a bonding material. Group 6: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored with composite resin using the same bonding material. Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and the loads for fracture strength were applied vertically with a constant speed of 1 mm min(-1). Data were evaluated statistically with anova and Tukey's tests. RESULTS: The mean force of fracture values were 1191.41, 599.86, 233.03, 494.72, 962.81 and 856.48 N for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The fracture resistance of group 5 was similar to group 1 (P > 0.05). The mean force at fracture of group 5 and group 6 was not significantly different. The fracture resistance of groups 5 and 6 was significantly higher than group 4 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The group, restored with conventional amalgam, had the weakest resistance to fracture when compared with the bonded restorations. No statistically significant differences were found between the bonded amalgam and composite resin groups.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the fracture resistance of root filled maxillary premolars restored with different techniques. METHODOLOGY: One hundred and twenty single-rooted maxillary premolar teeth were divided randomly into six groups of 20 teeth and subjected to the following procedures: group 1: intact teeth. Group 2: endodontic access cavities prepared. Group 3: MOD cavities were prepared, root canals were filled and no restoration was placed. Group 4: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored conventionally with amalgam. Group 5: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored with amalgam using a bonding material. Group 6: teeth were prepared as group 3 and restored with composite resin using the same bonding material. Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin and the loads for fracture strength were applied vertically with a constant speed of 1 mm min(-1). Data were evaluated statistically with anova and Tukey's tests. RESULTS: The mean force of fracture values were 1191.41, 599.86, 233.03, 494.72, 962.81 and 856.48 N for groups 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6, respectively. The fracture resistance of group 5 was similar to group 1 (P > 0.05). The mean force at fracture of group 5 and group 6 was not significantly different. The fracture resistance of groups 5 and 6 was significantly higher than group 4 (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The group, restored with conventional amalgam, had the weakest resistance to fracture when compared with the bonded restorations. No statistically significant differences were found between the bonded amalgam and composite resin groups.