INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture type and test the effects of 2 different fibers on fracture strength of roots with reattached fragments. The null hypothesis was that adding suitable fibers to the content of dual-cure adhesive resin cement increases the fracture resistance of reattached fragments under vertical forces. METHODS: Root canals of 45 teeth were prepared, and the teeth were intentionally fractured into 2 separate fragments. Control groups (n = 7 each) consisted of unfractured teeth with instrumented and obturated or only instrumented root canals. The fractured teeth were divided into 3 groups (n = 15 each), and separated fragments were reattached by using (1) dual-cured resin cement (Clearfil SA), (2) dual-cured resin cement + polyethylene fiber (Construct), or (3) dual-cured resin cement + glass fiber (Stick-Net). Force was applied at a constant speed of 0.5 mm/min to the root until fracture. Mean load was recorded and analyzed statistically by using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (P = .05). Fracture types were analyzed by using χ(2) analysis with Yates correction. RESULTS: Stick-Net demonstrated the lowest fracture resistance (P < .05), whereas Construct and Clearfil SA had similar fracture strengths (P > .05). The roots in the control group showed the highest fracture resistance. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the Construct, Clearfil SA, and control groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Separated fragments of vertically fractured teeth can be reattached by using a dual-cured resin or by adding polyethylene fiber (Construct).
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture type and test the effects of 2 different fibers on fracture strength of roots with reattached fragments. The null hypothesis was that adding suitable fibers to the content of dual-cure adhesive resin cement increases the fracture resistance of reattached fragments under vertical forces. METHODS: Root canals of 45 teeth were prepared, and the teeth were intentionally fractured into 2 separate fragments. Control groups (n = 7 each) consisted of unfractured teeth with instrumented and obturated or only instrumented root canals. The fractured teeth were divided into 3 groups (n = 15 each), and separated fragments were reattached by using (1) dual-cured resin cement (Clearfil SA), (2) dual-cured resin cement + polyethylene fiber (Construct), or (3) dual-cured resin cement + glass fiber (Stick-Net). Force was applied at a constant speed of 0.5 mm/min to the root until fracture. Mean load was recorded and analyzed statistically by using Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (P = .05). Fracture types were analyzed by using χ(2) analysis with Yates correction. RESULTS: Stick-Net demonstrated the lowest fracture resistance (P < .05), whereas Construct and Clearfil SA had similar fracture strengths (P > .05). The roots in the control group showed the highest fracture resistance. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the Construct, Clearfil SA, and control groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Separated fragments of vertically fractured teeth can be reattached by using a dual-cured resin or by adding polyethylene fiber (Construct).