Volume : 09, Issue : 05, May – 2022
Title:
58.OPTIMIZING COMPOSITE RESIN DEPTH TO MAXIMIZE FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF TREATED TOOTH
Authors :
Hanan Abdullah Turkstani,Hafsa Mohammed Hawsawi,Noor Abdullah Alammari,Amal Sales Allhiani,Ghayah Abdo Alasiri,Sara Mohammed Barahim,Moayad Faisal
Abstract :
Lifespan of restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities relies on various factors, including the materials, the dentist, and the patient. According to the dental literature, annual failure rates of posterior composite resin inlays and onlays range from 0% to 10%, demonstrating that indirect posterior restorations are a long-lasting option for the rehabilitation of major defects. The literature was searched in the most well-known databases, Medline and Embase, for all pertinent research published up to the middle of 2022. Within the constraints of this in vitro study, the results demonstrated that the use of composite resin overlays represents a conservative approach to endodontically treated tooth rehabilitation. All composite resin overlays had fracture strengths greater than the expected bite forces. The introduction of glass fibers boosted fracture resistance and had a beneficial influence on failure mode and thus re-restorability in the event of fracture.
Cite This Article:
Please cite this article in press Hanan Abdullah Turkstani et al, Optimizing Composite Resin Depth To Maximize Fracture Resistance Of Treated Tooth., Indo Am. J. P. Sci, 2022; 09(5).,
Number of Downloads : 10
References:
1. Zarow M., Ramírez-Sebastià A., Paolone G., de Ribot Porta J., Mora J., Espona J., Durán-Sindreu F., Roig M. A new classification system for the restoration of root filled teeth. Int. Endod. J. 2018;51:318–334.
2. Słowik J., Jurczak A., Zarow M. The Application of Quality Guidelines of the European Society of Endodontology in Dental Practice in Poland. Ann. Acad. Med. Stetin. 2011;57:110–114.
3. Kharouf N., Arntz Y., Eid A., Zghal J., Sauro S., Haikel Y., Mancino D. Physicochemical and Antibacterial Properties of Novel, Premixed Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Compared to Powder–Liquid Bioceramic Sealer. J. Clin. Med. 2020;9:3096.
4. Makade C.S., Meshram G.K., Warhadpande M., Patil P.G. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Different Post Core Systems—An in-Vitro Study. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2011;3:90–95.
5. Cheung W. A Review of the Management of Endodontically Treated Teeth: Post, Core and the Final Restoration. J. Am. Dent. Assoc. 2005;136:611–619.
6. Naumann M., Schmitter M., Frankenberger R., Krastl G. “Ferrule Comes First. Post Is Second!” Fake News and Alternative Facts? A Systematic Review. J. Endod. 2018;44:212–219.
7. Al-Ansari A. Which Type of Post and Core System Should You Use? Evid.-Based Dent. 2007;8:42.
8. Guldener K.A., Lanzrein C.L., Guldener B.E.S., Lang N.P., Ramseier C.A., Salvi G.E. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with or without Fiber Post–Retained Single-Unit Restorations. J. Endod. 2017;43:188–193.
9. Zarow M., Paisley C.S., Krupinski J., Brunton P.A. Fiber-Reinforced Composite Fixed Dental Prostheses: Two Clinical Reports. Quintessence Int. 2010;41:471–477.
10. Signore A., Benedicenti S., Kaitsas V., Barone M., Angiero F., Ravera G. Long-Term Survival of Endodontically Treated, Maxillary Anterior Teeth Restored with Either Tapered or Parallel-Sided Glass-Fiber Posts and Full-Ceramic Crown Coverage. J. Dent. 2009;37:115–121.
11. Mamoun J. Post and Core Build-Ups in Crown and Bridge Abutments: Bio-Mechanical Advantages and Disadvantages. J. Adv. Prosthodont. 2017;9:232–237.
12. Gowda S., Quadras D.D., Sesappa S.R., Maiya G.R.R., Kumar L., Kulkarni D., Mishra N. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Different Types of Composite Core Build-up Materials: An in Vitro Study. J. Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2018;19:507–514.
13. Warangkulkasemkit S., Pumpaluk P. Comparison of Physical Properties of Three Commercial Composite Core Build up Materials. Dent. Mater. J. 2019;38:177–181
14. Ferracane J.L. Resin Composite—State of the Art. Dent. Mater. 2011;27:29–38.
15. Rasimick BJ, Wan J, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. A review of failure modes in teeth restored with adhesively luted endodontic dowels. J Prosthodont. 2010;19(8):639–646.
16. Rüttermann S, Alberts I, Raab WH, Janda RR. Physical properties of self-, dual-, and light-cured direct core materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15(4):597–603.
17. Tauböck TT, Bortolotto T, Buchalla W, Attin T, Krejci I. Influence of light-curing protocols on polymerization shrinkage and shrinkage force of a dual-cured core build-up resin composite. Eur J Oral Sci. 2010;118(4):423–429.
18. Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, Beuer F, Frankenberger R. In vitro performance of self-adhesive resin cements for post-and-core build-ups: influence of chewing simulation or 1-year storage in 0.5% chloramine solution. Acta Biomater. 2010;6(11):4389–4395.
19. Kim YH, Lee JH. Influence of modification in core building procedure on fracture strength and failure patterns of premolars restored with fiber post and composite core. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012;4(1):37–42.
20. Santos MJ, Bezerra RB. Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with direct and indirect adhesive technique. J Can Dent Assoc 2005;71:585.
21. Yamanel K, Caglar A, Gülsahi K, Ozden UA. Effect of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities; 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J 2009;28:661-70.
22. Eakle WS, Maxwell EH, Braly BV. Fracture of posterior teeth in adults. J Am Dent Assoc 1986;112:215-8.
23. Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A, Franco EB. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly with ceramic materials. Am J Dent 2002;15:389-94.
24. Edelhoff D, Sorensen JA. Tooth structure removal associated with various preparation designs for posterior teeth. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002;22:241-249.
25. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite resin complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2005;38:230-237.
26. Ichim I, Kuzmnaovic DV, Love RM. A finite element analysis of ferrule design on restoration resistance and distribution of stress within a root. Int Endod J 2006;39:443-452.
27. Isaac DH. Engineering aspects of fiber reinforced composite resins. In: Vallittu PK (ed). The first symposium on fiber reinforced plastics in dentistry. Turku: University of Turku, 1999.
28. Isidor F, Brondum K, Ravnholt G. The influence of post length and crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic loading of bovine teeth with prefabricated titanium posts. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:78-82.
29. Karbhari VM, Strassler H. Effect of fiber architecture on flexural characteristics and fracture of fiber-reinforced composite resins. Dent Mater 2007;23:960-968.
30. Krejci I, Reich T, Lutz F, Albertson M. In-vitro-Testverfahren zur Evaluation dentaler Restaurationssysteme. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 1990; 100:8-14.
31. Lassilla LVJ, Nohrstrom T, Vallittu PK. The influence of short-term water storage on the flexural properties of unidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composite resins. Biomaterials 2002; 23:2221-2229.
32. Magne P, Boff LL, Oderich E, Cardoso AC. Computer-aided-design/computer-assisted-manufactured adhesive restoration of molars with a compromised cusp: effect of fiber-reinforced immediate dentin sealing and cusp overlap on fatigue strength. J Esthet Restor Dent 2012; 24:135-147.