Literature DB >> 3511111

Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin.

W S Eakle.   

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to determine whether composite resin bonded to enamel or to both enamel and dentin can increase the fracture resistance of teeth with Class II cavity preparations. Extracted maxillary pre-molars with MOD slot preparations were restored with composite resin bonded to enamel (P-30 and Enamel Bond) or composite resin bonded to enamel and dentin (P-30 and Scotch-bond). Teeth in a control group were prepared but left unrestored. All teeth were loaded occlusally in a universal testing machine until they fractured. Means of forces required to fracture teeth in each of the three groups were statistically compared (one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni t test). Teeth restored with combined enamel- and dentin-bonded composite resins were significantly more resistant to fracture than were similarly prepared but unrestored teeth and also than teeth restored with enamel-bonded composite resin (p less than 0.05). A significant difference was not demonstrated between the enamel-bonded group and the unrestored group. Further testing is needed to determine the durability of the bonds between tooth and restoration in the clinical setting.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1986        PMID: 3511111     DOI: 10.1177/00220345860650021201

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Dent Res        ISSN: 0022-0345            Impact factor:   6.116


  18 in total

1.  Class II composite resin restorations: faster, easier, predictable.

Authors:  R D Jackson
Journal:  Br Dent J       Date:  2016-11-18       Impact factor: 1.626

2.  Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Prashant Monga; Vivek Sharma; Sukesh Kumar
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2009-10

3.  The influence of different composite placement techniques on microleakage in preparations with high C- factor: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Lekha Santhosh; Kusum Bashetty; Gururaj Nadig
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2008-07

4.  Comparative evaluation of combined amalgam and composite resin restorations in extensively carious vital posterior teeth: An in vivo study.

Authors:  Gagandeep Kaur; Manpreet Singh; Cs Bal; Up Singh
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2011-01

5.  Reinforcement of unsupported enamel by restorative materials and dentin bonding agents: an in vitro study.

Authors:  M Mirzaei; M Ghavam; T Rostamzadeh
Journal:  J Dent (Tehran)       Date:  2010-06-30

6.  Effect of fiber orientation and type of restorative material on fracture strength of the tooth.

Authors:  Maryam Moezizadeh; Mohadeseh Shokripour
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2011-10

7.  Fracture resistance of premolars restored by various types and placement techniques of resin composites.

Authors:  Horieh Moosavi; Mahsa Zeynali; Zahra Hosseini Pour
Journal:  Int J Dent       Date:  2012-05-14

8.  Evaluation of fracture resistance and mode of failure of premolars restored with nanohybrid composite, ORMOCER and ceramic inlays.

Authors:  Mohit K Gunwal; Pratima R Shenoi; Tanvee Paranjape; Sonal Dhote; Ravish Tongya; Magesh Kumar; Sanjay Rastogi
Journal:  J Oral Biol Craniofac Res       Date:  2017-09-01

9.  Effect of different root canal irrigants on the sealing ability of two all-in-one self-etch adhesives: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Rashi Agrawal; Shashi Prabha Tyagi; Rajni Nagpal; Chandrakar Chaman Mishra; Udai Pratap Singh
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2012-10

10.  Effect of chlorhexidine application on the bond strength of resin core to axial dentin in endodontic cavity.

Authors:  Yun-Hee Kim; Dong-Hoon Shin
Journal:  Restor Dent Endod       Date:  2012-11-21
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.