Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2018; 7(03): 56-60
DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_83_18
Original Article

Fracture resistance of the permanent restorations for endodontically treated premolars

Galvin Sim Siang Lin
Department of Oral Diagnosis, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Nik Rozainah Nik Abdul Ghani
Department of Oral Diagnosis, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia; Department of Dentistry, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Tahir Yusuf Noorani
Department of Oral Diagnosis, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia; Department of Dentistry, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
,
Noor Huda Ismail
1   Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia; Department of Dentistry, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kubang Kerian, Kelantan, Malaysia
2   Department of Dentistry, Hospital Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to compare the fracture strength, fracture pattern, types of fracture involved, and areas of fractured restoration among endodontically treated permanent lower premolars restored with different restorative materials. Materials and Methods: Sixty-nine mature human permanent lower premolars recently extracted for orthodontic, periodontal, or other reasons were selected and divided into three groups (n = 23). Groups 1 and 2 were endodontically treated. Standardized mesio-occlusal distal cavities were then prepared in both Groups 1 and 2. Groups 1 and 2 were restored with amalgam using Nayyar’s core technique and glass fiber post with composite resin core, respectively. Group 3 consisted of intact teeth which acted as control group. All teeth were tested under constant occlusal load until fracture occurred using a Universal Testing Machine. Data analysis was carried out using Kruskal–Wallis test complemented by Mann–Whitney test. Results: The mean values of fracture strength were 388.05 N (± 158.09) for Group 1, 588.90 N (± 151.33) for Group 2, and 803.05 N (± 182.23) for Group 3. Kruskal–Wallis test showed significant differences among all three groups in terms of fracture strength. The mean load required to fracture intact teeth in Group 3 was significantly highest, followed by Group 2 (P < 0.01) and finally Group 1 (P < 0.01). Most fractures occurred within the coronal structure and were considered favorable pattern. Besides, majority of the fractures occurred on restorations and particularly at the distal side. Conclusions: Teeth restored with fiber post and composite core resulted in higher fracture resistance than teeth restored with Nayyar’s core amalgam restoration.

Keywords

Fracture pattern - fracture resistance - glass fiber post - Nayyar’s core - post and core technique

Financial support and sponsorship

Financial support for this study was provided by Universiti Sains Malaysia under the short-term research grant scheme no. 304/PPSG/61313139 and 304/PPSG/61313106.




Publication History

Article published online:
01 November 2021

© 2018. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Hussain SK, McDonald A, Moles DR.In vitro study investigating the mass of tooth structure removed following endodontic and restorative procedures. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:260-9.
  • 2 Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15:512-6.
  • 3 Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, Loushine BA, Weller RN, Loushine RJ, et al. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2011;37:895-902.
  • 4 Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard LA. An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:511-5.
  • 5 Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC.In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:49-55.
  • 6 Hürmüzlü F, Kiremitçi A, Serper A, Altundaşar E, Siso SH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003;29:838-40.
  • 7 Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:154-9.
  • 8 Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992;8:197-202.
  • 9 Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27:275-8.
  • 10 Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of the literature – Part 1. Composition and micro – And macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int 2007;38:733-43.
  • 11 Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. A structured analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure modes of fiber, metal, and ceramic post-and-core systems. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:476-82.
  • 12 Mangold JT, Kern M. Influence of glass-fiber posts on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated premolars with varying substance loss: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:387-93.
  • 13 Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Grandini S, De Sanctis M, Goracci C. Post placement affects survival of endodontically treated premolars. J Dent Res 2007;86:729-34.
  • 14 Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989;68:1540-4.
  • 15 Steele A, Johnson BR.In vitro fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 1999;25:6-8.
  • 16 Salis SG, Hood JA, Kirk EE, Stokes AN. Impact-fracture energy of human premolar teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1987;58:43-8.
  • 17 Cameriere R, De Luca S, Alemán I, Ferrante L, Cingolani M. Age estimation by pulp/tooth ratio in lower premolars by orthopantomography. Forensic Sci Int 2012;214:105-12.
  • 18 Shafiei F, Tavangar MS, Ghahramani Y, Fattah Z. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer. J Adv Prosthodont 2014;6:200-6.
  • 19 Soares PV, Santos-Filho PCF, Queiroz EC, Araújo TC, Campos RE, Araújo CA, et al. Fracture resistance and stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 2008;17:114-9.
  • 20 Mincik J, Urban D, Timkova S, Urban R. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by various direct filling materials: An in vitro study. Int J Biomater 2016;2016:9138945.
  • 21 Going RE, Moffa JP, Nostrant GW, Johnson BE. The strength of dental amalgam as influenced by pins. J Am Dent Assoc 1968;77:1331-4.
  • 22 Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: Some clinical implications. Int Dent J 1991;41:25-32.
  • 23 Jorgensen KD. The mechanism of marginal fracture of amalgam fillings. Acta Odontol Scand 1965;23:347-89.
  • 24 Makade CS, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, Patil PG. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post core systems – An in-vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:90-5.
  • 25 Marchi GM, Paulillo LA, Pimenta LA, De Lima FA. Effect of different filling materials in combination with intraradicular posts on the resistance to fracture of weakened roots. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:623-9.
  • 26 Zogheib LV, Pereira JR, do Valle AL, de Oliveira JA, Pegoraro LF. Fracture resistance of weakened roots restored with composite resin and glass fiber post. Braz Dent J 2008;19:329-33.
  • 27 Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH, et al. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2005;38:230-7.
  • 28 Salameh Z, Sorrentino R, Ounsi HF, Goracci C, Tashkandi E, Tay FR, et al. Effect of different all-ceramic crown system on fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with and without glass fiber posts. J Endod 2007;33:848-51.
  • 29 Soares CJ, Soares PV, de Freitas Santos-Filho PC, Castro CG, Magalhaes D, Versluis A, et al. The influence of cavity design and glass fiber posts on biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 2008;34:1015-9.
  • 30 Gomez-Robles A, Martinon-Torres M, Bermudez de Castro JM, Prado L, Sarmiento S, and Arsuaga JL. Geometric morphometric analysis of the crown morphology of the lower first premolar of hominins, with special attention to Pleistocene Homo. J Hum Evol 2008; 55:627-38.
  • 31 Martinón-Torres M, Bastir M, Bermúdez de Castro JM, Gómez A, Sarmiento S, Muela A, et al. Hominin lower second premolar morphology: Evolutionary inferences through geometric morphometric analysis. J Hum Evol 2006;50:523-33.