Wei Ji1, Zhi Chen, Jo E Frencken. 1. Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedical Engineering of Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, Hubei 430079, PR China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the strength of the marginal ridge of tunnel preparations with different marginal ridge heights, using different restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS:120 sound premolars were randomly divided into three groups of standardized tunnel preparations with a remaining marginal ridge height of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. In each tunnel group, 10 teeth were filled with all four newly developed adhesive materials that had not previously been used in tunnel preparation: Ketac Aplicap, Fuji IX, Fuji II LC and Beautifil Flow F02. The control group comprised 10 sound teeth. All teeth were subjected to incremental dynamic force testing. Remaining marginal ridge height and restoration material were the independent variables. The mean maximum energy (MEI) score was the dependent variable. Data were analyzed, using one- and two-way analysis of variance. Scheffe's test and Student's t-test were used for comparison between groups. RESULTS: Both restorative material (P<0.0001) and remaining marginal ridge height (P<0.0001) had a statistically significant effect on the mean MEI score of tunnel-prepared teeth. At the 2.5 mm of remaining marginal ridge height, no statistically significant difference in mean MEI score existed between Beautifil FlowF02-filled tunnel-prepared teeth and sound teeth. SIGNIFICANCE: Premolars tunnel-restored with Beautifil Flow F02 at 2.5 mm distance from the marginal ridge were as strong as sound teeth.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to investigate the strength of the marginal ridge of tunnel preparations with different marginal ridge heights, using different restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 120 sound premolars were randomly divided into three groups of standardized tunnel preparations with a remaining marginal ridge height of 1.5 mm, 2.5 mm and 3.5 mm, respectively. In each tunnel group, 10 teeth were filled with all four newly developed adhesive materials that had not previously been used in tunnel preparation: Ketac Aplicap, Fuji IX, Fuji II LC and Beautifil Flow F02. The control group comprised 10 sound teeth. All teeth were subjected to incremental dynamic force testing. Remaining marginal ridge height and restoration material were the independent variables. The mean maximum energy (MEI) score was the dependent variable. Data were analyzed, using one- and two-way analysis of variance. Scheffe's test and Student's t-test were used for comparison between groups. RESULTS: Both restorative material (P<0.0001) and remaining marginal ridge height (P<0.0001) had a statistically significant effect on the mean MEI score of tunnel-prepared teeth. At the 2.5 mm of remaining marginal ridge height, no statistically significant difference in mean MEI score existed between Beautifil Flow F02-filled tunnel-prepared teeth and sound teeth. SIGNIFICANCE: Premolars tunnel-restored with Beautifil Flow F02 at 2.5 mm distance from the marginal ridge were as strong as sound teeth.