Evaluation of effect of core build-up materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth Fracture resistance of core build-up materials


Article Sidebar

Pdf 283
Published: Apr 22, 2022
DOI: https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4203
Keywords:
endodontically treated teeth, alkasite, cyclic loading
Section
Original Articles
Statistic

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Main Article Content

Vijay Linju
Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
V. P Prabath Singh
Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
Hariharan Madhu
Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
Gayathri Presannakumar
Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7400-6702

Abstract

Background: Restoration of teeth after endodontic treatment is becoming an integral part of reconstructive dentistry.


Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of different core build-up materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.


Materials and methods: Freshly extracted forty permanent mandibular first molars were selected. Standardized access cavities were prepared, following which mesial canals were prepared up to F2 (8%25) and distal canals up to F3 (9%30) and obturated. The coronal portion of the specimen was altered by removing the mesial wall and retaining buccal, lingual and mesial walls of 2mm and distal 5mm girth. Ten specimens each were rehabilitated with high copper amalgam, type IX GIC, posterior composite and Alkasite as core build-ups. All the specimens were finally rehabilitated with a metal crown. The specimens were tested for fracture resistance using a universal testing machine under oblique (135o to the long axis of teeth) cyclic loading. The number of cycles taken to fracture and the fracture site was recorded. The results of mechanical cyclic loading to evaluate fracture resistance showed that composite core endured the maximum number of cycles to fracture followed by amalgam, Alkasite and type IX GIC.


To test the statistical significance of the difference in mean value KIC among four groups, Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance was applied. Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test was performed to determine which group significantly differed from the others.


Results: From the results of this study, the composite was considered to be the best core build-up material. The newer material, Alkasite can bear stress almost to that of amalgam restoration.


Conclusion: This study suggests that Alkasite could be used as a core material for restoring the endodontically treated teeth.

Article Details


How to Cite
Linju, V., Prabath Singh, V. P., Madhu, H., & Presannakumar, G. (2022). Evaluation of effect of core build-up materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: Fracture resistance of core build-up materials. International Journal of Dental Materials, 4(2), 37–41. https://doi.org/10.37983/IJDM.2022.4203
Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author Biographies

Vijay Linju, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Postgraduate Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

V. P Prabath Singh, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Professor and HOD, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Hariharan Madhu, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

Gayathri Presannakumar, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham

Postgraduate student, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

References

  1. Trushkowsky RD. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: criteria and technique considerations. Quintessence Int. 2014;45(7):557–567.
  2. Combe EC, Shaglouf AM, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Mechanical properties of direct core build-up materials. Dent Mater. 1999;15(3):158–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(99)00027-5
  3. Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, Kumar MK, Gopal T. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3(1):22–26. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-237X.94541
  4. 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 JCD. 2009;12(4):154–159. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.58338
  5. Peroz I, Blankenstein F, Lange K-P, Naumann M. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores--a review. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(9):737–746.
  6. Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu L-S, 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(7):895–902. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.04.002
  7. Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J. 1995;28(1):12–18. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1995.tb00150.x
  8. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2015.
  9. Musanje L, Darvell BW. Aspects of water sorption from the air, water and artificial saliva in resin composite restorative materials. Dent Mater. 2003;19(5):414–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00085-4
  10. Palamara JEA, Palamara D, Messer HH. Strains in the marginal ridge during occlusal loading. Aust Dent J. 2002;47(3):218–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00332.x
  11. Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989;15(11):512–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80191-8
  12. Vârlan C, Dimitriu B, Vârlan V, Bodnar D, Suciu I. Current opinions concerning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: basic principles. J Med Life. 2009;2(2):165–172. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.123849
  13. Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):438–445. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.123849
  14. Daneshkazemi A. Resistance of bonded composite restorations to fracture of endodontically treated teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2004;15(3):51–58. https://doi.org/10.5005/jcdp-5-3-51
  15. Gupta A, Arora V, Jha P, Nikhil V, Bansal P. An in vitro comparative evaluation of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots obturated with gutta-percha. J Conserv Dent JCD. 2016;19(2):111–115. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.178682
  16. Chowdhury D, Guha C, Desai P. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Dental Amalgam, Z350 Composite Resin and Cention-N Restoration In Class II Cavity. Int Organ Sci Res. 2018;17(4):52–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.archoralbio.2014.05.005
  17. de Abreu RAM, Pereira MD, Furtado F, Prado GPR, Mestriner W, Ferreira LM. Masticatory efficiency and bite force in individuals with normal occlusion. Arch Oral Biol. 2014;59(10):1065–1074. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12538
  18. Aurélio IL, Fraga S, Rippe MP, Valandro LF. Are posts necessary for the restoration of root filled teeth with limited tissue loss? A structured review of laboratory and clinical studies. Int Endod J. 2016;49(9):827–835.
  19. Krejci, I., Duc, O., Dietschi, D. & de Campos, E. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper. Dent. 2003;28(2):127-35.
  20. Sorrentino R, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Zarone F, Tay FR, García-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Effect of post-retained composite restorations and amount of coronal residual structure on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth. Am J Dent. 2007;20(4):269-74..
  21. Jagvinder singh mann, Sunakshi sarma. Cention N: A Review. Int J Curr Res. may2018;10(05):69111–2.
  22. Sharma A, Das S, Thomas MS, Ginjupalli K. Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials. Saudi Endodontic Journal. 2019;9(3):205.
  23. Mazumdar P, Das A, Guha c. Comparative evaluation of hardness of different restorative materials (restorative gic, cention n, nanohybrid composite resin and silver amalgam) – an in vitro study. Int J Adv Res. 2018 Mar 31;6(3):826–32. https://doi.org/10.21474/IJAR01/6737