E T Basaran1, Y Gokce2. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Yeditepe University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Istanbul University Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul, Turkey.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different restoration techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with different wall thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Extracted and endodontically treated 210 premolars were randomly divided into three thickness groups [2 mm (A), 1.5 mm (B), and 1 mm (C)] and, each group was further divided into seven restoration subgroups (n = 10): direct composite (control) (K), composite with fiber on cavity floor (KT), composite with fiber on occlusal level (KO), fiber post and composite (FP), inlay (L), fiber on cavity floor and inlay (LT), and inlay and fiber on occlusal level (LO). Fracture test was performed, and data were compared with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: There were no differences between the subgroups in A and C statistically (P > 0.05). However, in B, KO subgroup showed statistically higher values (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Wall support of 2 mm was adequate, and support of 1 mm was completely insufficient. When the wall thickness was 1.5 mm, direct restoration with fiber at the occlusal level significantly improved resistance.
AIMS: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of different restoration techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with different wall thicknesses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Extracted and endodontically treated 210 premolars were randomly divided into three thickness groups [2 mm (A), 1.5 mm (B), and 1 mm (C)] and, each group was further divided into seven restoration subgroups (n = 10): direct composite (control) (K), composite with fiber on cavity floor (KT), composite with fiber on occlusal level (KO), fiber post and composite (FP), inlay (L), fiber on cavity floor and inlay (LT), and inlay and fiber on occlusal level (LO). Fracture test was performed, and data were compared with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: There were no differences between the subgroups in A and C statistically (P > 0.05). However, in B, KO subgroup showed statistically higher values (P = 0.039). CONCLUSION: Wall support of 2 mm was adequate, and support of 1 mm was completely insufficient. When the wall thickness was 1.5 mm, direct restoration with fiber at the occlusal level significantly improved resistance.
Authors: Sıla Nur Usta; Begüm Cömert-Pak; Eda Karaismailoğlu; Ayhan Eymirli; Derya Deniz-Sungur Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.390