Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2018; 7(02): 25-30
DOI: 10.4103/ejgd.ejgd_153_17
Original Article

Comparison of different base materials on fracture strength of mesio-occlusal-distal composite restorations

Fatma Dilsad Oz
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey
,
Esra Ergin
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey
,
Sevil Gurgan
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of different base materials on fracture strength of mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) composite restorations. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight extracted, intact maxillary molar teeth with standardized, deep MOD cavities were randomly assigned into four groups according to the base material placed: Control group (CO); no base material, SDR group; bulk-fill flowable composite, CGIC group; chemically curing glass ionomer cement (GIC), and RGIC group; light curing resin reinforced GIC. All the specimens were then restored with a nanocomposite (CeramX Duo/Dentsply) in combination with etch and rinse adhesive following the manufacturer’s instructions. After aging fracture, strength of the specimens was tested by the application of a ramped oblique load to the buccal cusp in a universal testing machine. Mean fracture strength values for each group were calculated and compared using one-way ANOVA (P = 0.05). Fracture patterns of the specimens were also evaluated. Results: The mean loads necessary to fracture the samples were as follows: control: 819.22 ± 253.65; SDR: 694.46 ± 266. 55; CGIC: 559.15 ± 277.34; RGIC 861.87 ± 277.28: N. The control and RGIC groups showed significantly higher fracture strength than CGIC and SDR groups (P < 0.05). Although the mean fracture strength value of SDR group was higher than that of CGIC group, the difference between these groups was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Most frequently observed fracture patterns were adhesive (58.3%) in CO, cohesive (50%) in SDR group, cohesive (83.3%) in CGIC group, and mixed (41.7%) in RGIC group. Conclusions: Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement as a base material or restoration of the tooth only with composite resin resulted in higher fracture strength than composite resin restoration with a conventional glass ionomer base or a flowable bulk-fill material. Fracture pattern distributions diversed according to the base material placed under composite restoration.

Keywords

Bulk-fill - composite - fracture strength - glass ionomer cement

Clinical relevance

Despite higher fracture strength values of resin-modified GIC, clinicians might prefer conventional glass ionomer base materials and dentin replacement flowable bulk-fill materials since their fracture patterns are repairable.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.




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 Kivanç BH, Alaçam T, Görgül G. Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques. Dent Mater J 2010;29:262-7.
  • 2 Nam SH, Chang HS, Min KS, Lee Y, Cho HW, Bae JM, et al. Effect of the number of residual walls on fracture resistances, failure patterns, and photoelasticity of simulated premolars restored with or without fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2010;36:297-301.
  • 3 Meng QF, Chen YM, Guang HB, Yip KH, Smales RJ. Effect of a ferrule and increased clinical crown length on the in vitro fracture resistance of premolars restored using two dowel-and-core systems. Oper Dent 2007;32:595-601.
  • 4 Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: Fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:30-7.
  • 5 Unlu N, Cobankara FK, Ozer F. Effect of elapsed time following bleaching on the shear bond strength of composite resin to enamel. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2008;84:363-8.
  • 6 Krämer N, Reinelt C, Frankenberger R. Ten-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations. J Adhes Dent 2015;17:433-41.
  • 7 Pallesen U, van Dijken JW. A randomized controlled 30 years follow up of three conventional resin composites in class II restorations. Dent Mater 2015;31:1232-44.
  • 8 Christensen GJ. Longevity of posterior tooth dental restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:201-3.
  • 9 Eskitaşcioğlu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis). J Endod 2002;28:629-33.
  • 10 Mondelli RF, Ishikiriama SK, de Oliveira Filho O, Mondelli J. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:161-5.
  • 11 Plotino G, Buono L, Grande NM, Lamorgese V, Somma F. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:225-32.
  • 12 Ghavamnasiri M, Moosavi H, Tahvildarnejad N. Effect of centripetal and incremental methods in class II composite resin restorations on gingival microleakage. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:113-20.
  • 13 Idriss S, Abduljabbar T, Habib C, Omar R. Factors associated with microleakage in class II resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2007;32:60-6.
  • 14 Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ, Randall RC.In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324-35.
  • 15 Yamazaki PC, Bedran-Russo AK, Pereira PN, Wsift EJ Jr. Microleakage evaluation of a new low-shrinkage composite restorative material. Oper Dent 2006;31:670-6.
  • 16 Hofmann N, Denner W, Hugo B, Klaiber B. The influence of plasma arc vs. halogen standard or soft-start irradiation on polymerization shrinkage kinetics of polymer matrix composites. J Dent 2003;31:383-93.
  • 17 Chan DC, Browning WD, Frazier KB, Brackett MG. Clinical evaluation of the soft-start (pulse-delay) polymerization technique in class I and II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2008;33:265-71.
  • 18 Alomari QD, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB. Effect of liners on cusp deflection and gap formation in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26:406-11.
  • 19 Cho E, Chikawa H, Kishikawa R, Inai N, Otsuki M, Foxton RM, et al. Influence of elasticity on gap formation in a lining technique with flowable composite. Dent Mater J 2006;25:538-44.
  • 20 Leinfelder K. Characteristics of a new glass ionomer material. Inside Dent 2006;1:42-4.
  • 21 Hill EE. Dental cements for definitive luting: A review and practical clinical considerations. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:643-58, vi.
  • 22 Khoroushi M, Keshani F. A review of glass-ionomers: From conventional glass-ionomer to bioactive glass-ionomer. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2013;10:411-20.
  • 23 Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: An in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38:618-25.
  • 24 Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent 2009;37:724-30.
  • 25 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.
  • 26 Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent 2011;39:527-35.
  • 27 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.
  • 28 Eakle WS. Increased fracture resistance of teeth: Comparison of five bonded composite resin systems. Quintessence Int 1986;17:17-20.
  • 29 Gelb MN, Barouch E, Simonsen RJ. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II prepared and restored premolars. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:184-5.
  • 30 Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15:42-7.
  • 31 Krejci I, Sparr D, Lutz F. Three-layer light hardening procedure with traditional composites for black class II restorations. Quintessenz 1987;38:1217-29.
  • 32 Chuang SF, Jin YT, Liu JK, Chang CH, Shieh DB. Influence of flowable composite lining thickness on class II composite restorations. Oper Dent 2004;29:301-8.
  • 33 Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18:1991-2000.
  • 34 Kim RJ, Kim YJ, Choi NS, Lee IB. Polymerization shrinkage, modulus, and shrinkage stress related to tooth-restoration interfacial debonding in bulk-fill composites. J Dent 2015;43:430-9.
  • 35 Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent Mater 2011;27:348-55.
  • 36 Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour EJ. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod 2009;35:1428-32.
  • 37 Wilson AD. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cements. Int J Prosthodont 1990;3:425-9.
  • 38 Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2012;16:489-98.
  • 39 Banditmahakun S, Kuphausuk W, Kanchanavasita W, Kuphasuk C. The effect of base materials with different elastic moduli on the fracture loads of machinable ceramic inlays. Oper Dent 2006;31:180-7.
  • 40 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;27:281-4.
  • 41 Wendt SL Jr., Harris BM, Hunt TE. Resistance to cusp fracture in endodontically treated teeth. Dent Mater 1987;3:232-5.
  • 42 Davidson CL. Glass-ionomer bases under posterior composites. J Esthet Dent 1994;6:223-4.
  • 43 Li X, Pongprueksa P, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J. Curing profile of bulk-fill resin-based composites. J Dent 2015;43:664-72.
  • 44 Hormati AA, Fuller JL. The fracture strength of amalgam overlying base materials. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:52-7.
  • 45 Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10:237-41.
  • 46 Hickel R, Brüshaver K, Ilie N. Repair of restorations – Criteria for decision making and clinical recommendations. Dent Mater 2013;29:28-50.
  • 47 Sharif MO, Fedorowicz Z, Tickle M, Brunton PA. Repair or replacement of restorations: Do we accept built in obsolescence or do we improve the evidence? Br Dent J 2010;209:171-4.
  • 48 van de Sande FH, Rodolpho PA, Basso GR, Patias R, da Rosa QF, Demarco FF, et al. 18-year survival of posterior composite resin restorations with and without glass ionomer cement as base. Dent Mater 2015;31:669-75.