Mohit K Gunwal1, Pratima R Shenoi2, Tanvee Paranjape3, Sonal Dhote4, Ravish Tongya5, Magesh Kumar6, Sanjay Rastogi7. 1. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Index institute of dental sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 2. Dept. of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, VSPM'S Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India. 3. Dept. of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Index institute of dental sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 4. Private Practice, Consevative Dentistry and Endodontics, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 5. Dept. of Prosthodontics, Index Institute of Dental Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 6. Dept. of Periodontics, Index Institute of Dental Sciences, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India. 7. Dept. of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Kothiwal Dental College and Research Center, Moradabad, UP, India.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the fracture resistance and mode of failure of maxillary premolars restorations restored with nanohybrid Composite, ORMOCER and Ceramic Inlays. MATERIALS AND METHOD: 100 extracted first maxillary premolar were collected. Samples were divided into five groups. Group I - Intact premolars, Group II -MOD cavities without restorations, Group III - MOD cavities restored with composite restoration, GROUP IV - MOD cavities restored with ORMOCER restoration and GROUP V - MOD cavities restored with ceramic inlays. All the samples were sent for the axial compression test under the universal testing machine. Fracture resistance and fracture modes were recorded. RESULT: Highest fracture resistance was achieved in Group V (1324.74 ± 336.78) almost comparable to that of natural tooth (1381.07 ± 259.36) (p < 0.05), followed by Group IV (MOD cavities with ORMOCER restorations) (1082.27 ± 351.27) (p < 0.01) and least fracture resistance in Group III (MOD cavities with composite restorations) (778.35 ± 100.25) (p < 0.0001). Mode of fracture in Group IV and Group V are almost similar and In Group III 65% of the cases showed non-restorable fractures. CONCLUSION: ORMOCER fracture resistance along with other groups of clinically restorable fracture stand better than Nanohybrid composite. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the present study, the dentist can utilize the ORMOCER material as a restoration material for the cavities of posterior teeth which is better in terms of fracture resistance and durability of the restoration when compare to nanohybrid composite.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the fracture resistance and mode of failure of maxillary premolars restorations restored with nanohybrid Composite, ORMOCER and Ceramic Inlays. MATERIALS AND METHOD: 100 extracted first maxillary premolar were collected. Samples were divided into five groups. Group I - Intact premolars, Group II -MOD cavities without restorations, Group III - MOD cavities restored with composite restoration, GROUP IV - MOD cavities restored with ORMOCER restoration and GROUP V - MOD cavities restored with ceramic inlays. All the samples were sent for the axial compression test under the universal testing machine. Fracture resistance and fracture modes were recorded. RESULT: Highest fracture resistance was achieved in Group V (1324.74 ± 336.78) almost comparable to that of natural tooth (1381.07 ± 259.36) (p < 0.05), followed by Group IV (MOD cavities with ORMOCER restorations) (1082.27 ± 351.27) (p < 0.01) and least fracture resistance in Group III (MOD cavities with composite restorations) (778.35 ± 100.25) (p < 0.0001). Mode of fracture in Group IV and Group V are almost similar and In Group III 65% of the cases showed non-restorable fractures. CONCLUSION: ORMOCER fracture resistance along with other groups of clinically restorable fracture stand better than Nanohybrid composite. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the present study, the dentist can utilize the ORMOCER material as a restoration material for the cavities of posterior teeth which is better in terms of fracture resistance and durability of the restoration when compare to nanohybrid composite.
Authors: Santiago González López; Maria Victoria Sanz Chinesta; Laura Ceballos García; Francisco de Haro Gasquet; Maria Paloma González Rodríguez Journal: Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal Date: 2006-11-01
Authors: Petra C Guess; Stefan Schultheis; Estevam A Bonfante; Paulo G Coelho; Jonathan L Ferencz; Nelson R F A Silva Journal: Dent Clin North Am Date: 2011-03-03
Authors: Paulo Vinicius Soares; Paulo Cesar Freitas Santos-Filho; Luis Roberto Marcondes Martins; Carlos Jose Soares Journal: J Prosthet Dent Date: 2008-01 Impact factor: 3.426