Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Upper Premolar Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill And Conventional Resin Composite

Adem Gök; Mehmet Dallı; Çoruh Dulgergil

doi:10.7126/cumudj.1032872

EN TR

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Upper Premolar Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill And Conventional Resin Composite

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated upper premolar teeth restored with different resin composites. Materials and Methods: Hundred and eight maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into nine groups (n=12). The teeth in the first group were left intact and tested as unprepared group 1 (negative control) (group 1). Other eight groups were prepared with MOD cavities and endodontically treated. The teeth in group 2 (positive control) were unrestored. Other groups were restored with different resin composites. Group 3: conventional resin composite and group 4-9 six bulk fill resin composite (group 4: 3M Filtek Flowable Bulk Fill, group 5: 3M Filtek Posterior Bulk Fill, group 6: Voco X-tra base, group 7: Voco X-tra fil, group 8: Dentsply SDR Flow, group 9: Dentsply Quixfil). Single Bond Universal was applied as self-etch, according to application instructions. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C. Compressive force was applied parallel to the long axis of the teeth. The test was carried out at a speed of 1mm/min. ANOVA and Tukey HSD tests were used in the analysis of the data (p,0.05). Results: Conventional resin composite (group 3) showed lower fracture resistance than bulk fill resin composites (p<0.05) . There was no significant difference between the groups restored with bulk fill composites (p≥0.05). Conclusions: The bulk fill composites increase the fracture resistance of endodontic treated teeth,

Keywords

Bulk Fill Ve Geleneksel Kompozit Rezin İle Restore Edilmiş Endodontik Tedavi Görmüş Üst Premolar Dişlerin Kırılma Direncinin Değerlendirilmesi

Öz

Amaç: Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı, farklı tip kompozit rezinler ile restore edilmiş endodontik tedavi görmüş üst premolar dişlerin kırılma direncini değerlendirmektir. Gereç ve Yöntemler: Yüz sekiz maksiller premolar diş rastgele dokuz gruba (n=12) ayrıldı. Birinci gruptaki dişler (grup I) negatif kontrol grubu olarak belirlendi ve herhangi bir preparasyon yapılmadı. Kalan sekiz gruptaki dişlere MOD preparasyonlar hazırlandı ve endodontik tedavi yapıldı. Sekiz gruptan biri (grup 2) pozitif kontrol grubu olarak seçildi ve dişlere koronal restorasyon yapılmadı. 3. grup (3M UR200) geleneksel kompozit rezin ile restore edildi. Geri kalan 6 grup ise (4. grup 3M Filtek Flowable Bulk Fill, 5.grup 3M Filtek Posterior Bulk Fill, 6.grup Voco X-tra base, 7.grup Voco X-tra fil, 8.grup Dentsply SDR Flow, 9.grup Dentsply Quixfil) altı farklı bulk fill kompozit rezin ile restore edildi. Restorasyonlarda adeziv olarak Single Bond Universal, uygulama talimatlarına göre self-etch olarak uygulandı. Restore edilen dişler distile suda 37°C'de 24 saat saklandı. Örnekler üniversal test cihazında 1mm/dak hızda kırıldı. Veriler, tek yönlü Anova ve post hoc Tukey HSD testi kullanılarak analiz edildi. Analizler, SPSS 20.0 programı ile %5 anlamlılık düzeyinde gerçekleştirildi. Bulgular: Birinci grupta elde edilen skorlar diğer gruplara göre anlamlı ölçüde daha yüksek bulundu (p<0,05). Bulk fill kompozit rezinler ile restore edilen gruplar arasında kırılma direnci açısından anlamlı farklılık bulunmadı (p>0,05). En düşük kırılma skorları ise pozitif kontrol grubunda görüldü (p<0,05). Sonuçlar: Bulk fill kompozit ile restore edilen endodontik tedavili dişlerin kırılma direnci skorları, geleneksel kompozit rezinler ile restore edilen dişlerden daha yüksek bulunmuştur.

Anahtar Kelimeler

References

1. Burke F. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J. Dent. 1992;20:131-139.
2. Eakle W. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J. Dent. Res. 1986;65;149-153.
3. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 2010;36:609-617.
4. Topçuoğlu HS, Arslan H, Keleş A, Köseoğlu M. Fracture resistance of roots filled with three different obturation techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17:528-532.
5. Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root‐filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J. 2006;39:136-142.
6. Sandikci T, Kaptan R. Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated teeth filled using five different root canal filling systems. Niger. J. Clin. Pract. 2014;17:667-672.
7. Atlas A, Grandini S, Martignoni M. Evidence-based treatment planning for the restoration of endodontically treated single teeth: importance of coronal seal, post vs no post, and indirect vs direct restoration. Quintessence Int. 2019;50:772-781. 8. Ploumaki A, Bilkhair A, Tuna T, Stampf S, Strub J. Success rates of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth; a systematic review after 6 years. J. Oral Rehabil. 2013;40:618-630.
9. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J. 1994;27:281-284.

10. Taha N, Palamara J, Messer H. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J. Dent. 2011;39:527-535.
11. Sadaf D. Survival rates of endodontically treated teeth after placement of definitive coronal restoration: 8-year retrospective study. Ther. Clin. Risk Manag. 2020;16:121-135.
12. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on mechanical behaviour of dental composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2009;13:427-438. 13. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A. Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials? Dent Mater. 2012;28:521-528.
14. Tarle Z, Attin T, Marovic D, Andermatt L, Ristic M, Tauböck T. Influence of irradiation time on subsurface degree of conversion and microhardness of high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites. Clin. Oral Investig. 2015;19:831-840.
15. Chesterman J, Jowett A, Gallacher A, Nixon P. Bulk-fill resin-based composite restorative materials: a review. Br. Dent. J. 2017;222:337-344.
16. Jang J, Park S, Hwang I. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk-fill resin composites and highly filled flowable resin. Oper. Dent. 2015;40:172-180.
17. Reis AF, Vestphal M, AMARAL RCd, Rodrigues JA, Roulet J-F, Roscoe MG. Efficiency of polymerization of bulk-fill composite resins: a systematic review. Braz. Oral Res. 2017;31:37-48.
18. Garcia D, Yaman P, Dennison J, Neiva G. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulk fill flowable composite resins. Oper Dent. 2014;39:441-448.
19. Yasa B, Arslan H, Yasa E, Akcay M, Hatirli H. Effect of novel restorative materials and retention slots on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2016;74:96-102.
20. Toz T, Tuncer S, Öztürk Bozkurt F, Kara Tuncer A, Gözükara Bağ H. The effect of bulk-fill flowable composites on the fracture resistance and cuspal deflection of endodontically treated premolars J Adhes Sci Technol. 2015;29:1581-1592.
21. Atalay C, Yazici A, Horuztepe A, Nagas E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, and conventional resin composite. Oper. Dent. 2016;41:131-140.
22. Rosatto C, Bicalho A, Veríssimo C, et al. Mechanical properties, shrinkage stress, cuspal strain and fracture resistance of molars restored with bulk-fill composites and incremental filling technique. J Dent. 2015;43:1519-1528.
23. Üstün Ö, Güçlüer Ö. The Effect of Two Bulk-Fill Resin Composites on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth. Cumhur. Dent. J. 2019;22:345-350.
24. Isufi A, Plotino G, Grande NM, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulkfill flowable material and a resin composite. Ann Stomatol. 2016;7:4-10.
25. Reeh E, Douglas W, Messer H. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J. Dent. Res. 1989;68:1540-1544.
26. Deutsch AS, Musikant BL, Cavallari J, et al. Root fracture during insertion of prefabricated posts related to root size. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;53:786-789.
27. Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Dent Traumatol. 1990;6:49-55.
28. Khera SC, Carpenter CW, Vetter JD, Staley RN. Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth and their fracture potential. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:139-147.
29. Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J. Dent. 2014;42:993-1000.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Health Care Administration

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Adem Gök ^*
0000-0001-6453-6259
Türkiye

Mehmet Dallı
0000-0002-2639-5667
Türkiye

Çoruh Dulgergil
0000-0002-2313-5325
Türkiye

Publication Date

March 25, 2022

Submission Date

December 5, 2021

Acceptance Date

February 22, 2022

Published in Issue

Year 2022 Volume: 25 Number: Supplement

DOI

https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1032872

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA79CZ69WE

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

EndNote

Gök A, Dallı M, Dulgergil Ç (March 1, 2022) Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Upper Premolar Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill And Conventional Resin Composite. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal 25 Supplement 72–77.

Cited By

Optimizing fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with preheated thermos-viscous composite post-thermocycling, a comparative study. Part I

BMC Oral Health

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03959-7

Effect of composite resins with and without fiber-reinforcement on the fracture resistance of teeth with non-carious cervical lesions

Journal of Applied Biomaterials & Functional Materials

https://doi.org/10.1177/22808000241303327