Literature DB >> 23287406

Fatigue resistance and crack propensity of large MOD composite resin restorations: direct versus CAD/CAM inlays.

Silvana Batalha-Silva1, Mauro Amaral Caldeira de Andrada, Hamilton Pires Maia, Pascal Magne.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess the influence of material/technique selection (direct vs. CAD/CAM inlays) for large MOD composite adhesive restorations and its effect on the crack propensity and in vitro accelerated fatigue resistance.
METHODS: A standardized MOD slot-type tooth preparation was applied to 32 extracted maxillary molars (5mm depth and 5mm bucco-palatal width) including immediately sealed dentin for the inlay group. Fifteen teeth were restored with direct composite resin restoration (Miris2) and 17 teeth received milled inlays using Paradigm MZ100 block in the CEREC machine. All inlays were adhesively luted with a light curing composite resin (Filtek Z100). Enamel shrinkage-induced cracks were tracked with photography and transillumination. Cyclic isometric chewing (5 Hz) was simulated, starting with a load of 200 N (5000 cycles), followed by stages of 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200 and 1400 N at a maximum of 30,000 cycles each. Samples were loaded until fracture or to a maximum of 185,000 cycles.
RESULTS: Teeth restored with the direct technique fractured at an average load of 1213 N and two of them withstood all loading cycles (survival=13%); with inlays, the survival rate was 100%. Most failures with Miris2 occurred above the CEJ and were re-restorable (67%), but generated more shrinkage-induced cracks (47% of the specimen vs. 7% for inlays). SIGNIFICANCE: CAD/CAM MZ100 inlays increased the accelerated fatigue resistance and decreased the crack propensity of large MOD restorations when compared to direct restorations. While both restorative techniques yielded excellent fatigue results at physiological masticatory loads, CAD/CAM inlays seem more indicated for high-load patients.
Copyright © 2012 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23287406     DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dent Mater        ISSN: 0109-5641            Impact factor:   5.304


  6 in total

1.  Do composite resin restorations protect cracked teeth? An in-vitro study.

Authors:  O Naka; B J Millar; D Sagris; C David
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Gloss retention of direct composites and corresponding CAD/CAM composite blocks.

Authors:  Stefano Ardu; Olivier Duc; Ivo Krejci; Emilie Bétrisey; Enrico Di Bella; René Daher
Journal:  Clin Exp Dent Res       Date:  2021-10-14

3.  The Influence of Composite Thickness with or without Fibers on Fracture Resistance of Direct Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth.

Authors:  Hassan Torabzadeh; Amir Ghassemi; Masoud Sanei; Sara Razmavar; Seyedeh Mahsa Sheikh-Al-Eslamian
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2014-07-05

4.  Mechanical Assessment of Fatigue Characteristics between Single- and Multi-Directional Cyclic Loading Modes on a Dental Implant System.

Authors:  Won Hyeon Kim; Eun Sung Song; Kyung Won Ju; Dohyung Lim; Dong-Wook Han; Tae-Gon Jung; Yong-Hoon Jeong; Jong-Ho Lee; Bongju Kim
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2020-03-27       Impact factor: 3.623

Review 5.  Fracture Resistance of Partial Indirect Restorations Made With CAD/CAM Technology. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Amaia Amesti-Garaizabal; Rubén Agustín-Panadero; Blanca Verdejo-Solá; Antonio Fons-Font; Lucía Fernández-Estevan; Jose Montiel-Company; María Fernanda Solá-Ruíz
Journal:  J Clin Med       Date:  2019-11-09       Impact factor: 4.241

Review 6.  Review of Cracked Tooth Syndrome: Etiology, Diagnosis, Management, and Prevention.

Authors:  Fei Li; Yaoyao Diao; Jiayin Wang; Xingyu Hou; Shuzhan Qiao; Jiawen Kong; Yunhan Sun; Eui-Seok Lee; Heng Bo Jiang
Journal:  Pain Res Manag       Date:  2021-12-15       Impact factor: 3.037

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.