Taha Özyürek1, Özlem Ülker2, Ebru Özsezer Demiryürek3, Fikret Yılmaz2. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. Electronic address: tahaozyurek@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey. 3. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strengths of mandibular molar teeth prepared using traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) methods and restored using SDR (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE) and EverX Posterior (GC Dental, Tokyo, Japan) base composite materials. METHODS:A hundred mandibular first molar teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups. In group 1 (the control group), samples were kept intact. In group 2, TECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with EverX Posterior and composite resin. In group 3, CECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with EverX Posterior and composite resin. In group 4, TECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with SDR and composite resin. In group 5, CECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with SDR and composite resin. This load was applied on the samples at 1-mm/min speed using a 6-mm round-head tip until fracture. The forces resulting in fracture were recorded in newton units. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Pearson correlation tests at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: The fracture strengths of the samples in the control group were significantly higher than the experimental groups (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the endodontic access cavities prepared used the TEC and CEC methods and restored using the same composite base material (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: CEC preparation did not increase the fracture strength of teeth with class II cavities compared with TEC preparation. The fracture strength of teeth restored with the SDR bulk-fill composite was higher than that of teeth restored with EverX Posterior.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strengths of mandibular molar teeth prepared using traditional endodontic cavity (TEC) and conservative endodontic cavity (CEC) methods and restored using SDR (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE) and EverX Posterior (GC Dental, Tokyo, Japan) base composite materials. METHODS: A hundred mandibular first molar teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups. In group 1 (the control group), samples were kept intact. In group 2, TECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with EverX Posterior and composite resin. In group 3, CECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with EverX Posterior and composite resin. In group 4, TECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with SDR and composite resin. In group 5, CECs were prepared, and the samples were restored with SDR and composite resin. This load was applied on the samples at 1-mm/min speed using a 6-mm round-head tip until fracture. The forces resulting in fracture were recorded in newton units. The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Pearson correlation tests at a 5% significance level. RESULTS: The fracture strengths of the samples in the control group were significantly higher than the experimental groups (P < .05). There was no statistically significant difference in the endodontic access cavities prepared used the TEC and CEC methods and restored using the same composite base material (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: CEC preparation did not increase the fracture strength of teeth with class II cavities compared with TEC preparation. The fracture strength of teeth restored with the SDR bulk-fill composite was higher than that of teeth restored with EverX Posterior.