:: Volume 25, Issue 1 (1-2013) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2013, 25(1): 51-56 Back to browse issues page
Comparison of the Effects of Microfilled and Hybrid Composite Resin Restorations on the Fracture Resistance of Extensively Weakened Teeth
Mohammad bager Rezvani1 , Mahshid Mohammadi Basir1 , Fatemeh Mollaverdi2 , Rahil Ahmadi3 , Sedighe Mozaffar * 4
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran
2- Postgraduate Student, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran
4- Assistant Professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shahed University. Tehran, Iran , se_mozaffar@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (12184 Views)

  Background and Aim : Composite resins can play an important role in dentin support and enamel strength via bonding to tooth structure. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of hybrid and microfilled composite restorations on the fracture resistance of extensively weakened teeth .

  Materials and Methods : In this case control study 40 intact maxillary premolars were mounted in transparent acrylic resin blocks. The samples were divided into 4 groups (n=10 each). Group PC comprised of intact teeth, without preparation and restoration. In other three groups MOD preparations with constant depths and converged walls toward occlusal surfaces were prepared. Group NC composed of teeth with preparations but without any restoration. Group HR included prepared and restored teeth using a hybrid composite and Group MR contained prepared and restored samples with a microfilled composite. Samples were thermocycled (500 cycles in 5-55° C), then were placed under compressive loads in a universal testing machine, and the curves were drawn with a software called Test Xpert .

  Results : Mean fracture resistance in HR, MR, PC, and NC groups were 48.1010, 59.1773, 83.1420, and 21.9220, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference among the groups(P<0.05).

  Conclusion : The increasing effect of microfilled group on the fracture resistance of restored teeth is significantly more than that of hybrid group.
Keywords: Fracture resistance, Microfilled composite, Hybrid composite
Full-Text [PDF 148 kb]   (3672 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Restorative Dentistry
References
1. Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class II silver amalgam, posterior composite and glass cement restorations. Oper Dent. 1990 Mar-Apr; 15(2):42-7.
2. Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, de Lima Navarro MF, Soares FB. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1980 Apr; 43(2):419-22.
3. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded resin composite. J Dent Res. 1986 Feb;65(2):149-53.
4. Grimaldi JR, Hood JA. Lateral deformation of the tooth crown under axial cuspal loading. J Dent Res. 1973 Mar; 52(3):581-85.
5. Joynt RB, Wieczkowski G, Klockowski R, Davis EL. Effects of composite restorations on resistance to cuspal fracture in posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Apr; 57(4):431-5.
6. Stampalia LL, Nicholls JI, Brudvik JS, Jones DW. Fracture resistance of teeth with resin - bonded restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Jun; 55(6): 694-8.
7. Molinaro JD, Diefenderfer KE, Strother JM. The Influence of a packable resin composite, conventional resin composite and amalgam on molar cuspal stiffness. Oper Dent. 2002 Sep-Oct; 27(5): 516-24.
8. Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Art and science of operative dentistry. 5th ed. USA: The C.V Mosby Co; 2006, 807-842.
9. Dias de Souza GM, Pereiva GDS, Dias GTS, Paulillo LAMS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with the bonded amalgam technique. Oper Dent. 2001 Sep-Oct; 26(5):511-5.
10. Purk JH, Eick JD, DeScheppre EJ, Chappell RP, Tira DE. Fracture strength of class 1 versus class II restored premolars tested at the marginal ridge.I. Standard preparations. Quintessence Int. 1990 Aug; 21(7):545-51.
11. Bakke JC, Duke ES, Norling BK, Windler S, Mayhew RB. Fracture strength of class II preparations with a posterior composite. J Dent Res. 1985 Mar; 64 (1 Suppl):350.
12. Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. Fundamental of operative dentistry. A contemporary approach. 10th ed, Chicago: Quintessence Co; 2001, Chap. 11: 340-393.
13. Share J, Mishell Y, Nathanson DJ. Effect of restorative material on resistance to fracture of tooth structure invitro. J Dent Res. 1982 Mar; 61 (1 Suppl):74 247 (abstr NO. 622).
14. Simonsen RJ, Barouch E, Gelb MN. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II Prepared and restored premolars. J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Feb; 55 (2):184-5.
15. Van Meerbeck B, Van Landuyt K, De Munck J, Inoue S, Yoshida Y, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Peumans M. Bonding to enamel and dentin. In: Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of operative dentistry: A contemporary approach. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence Co; 2006, Chap 8:183-260.
16. Bagley A, Wakefield CW, Robbins JW. In vitro comparision of filled and unfilled univer-sal bonding agent of amalgam to dentin. Oper Dent. 1994 May-Jun; 19(3):97-101.
17. Mc Cullock AJ, Smith BGN. In vitro studies of cuspal movemnent produced by adhesive restorative materials. Br Dent J. 1986 Dec; 161 (11):405-9.
18. Newman SM, Pisko Dubienski R. Effect of compsite restorations on strength of posterior teeth. J Dent Res. 1984 Apr; 63(4):522-28.
19. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodonticlly - treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent. 1997 Oct;10(5):237- 41.
20. Liberman R, Ben Amar A, Gontar G, Hirsh A. Effect of posterior composite restorations on the resistance of cavity walls to vertically ap-plied occlusal loads. J Oral Rehabil. 1990 Jan; 17(1):99-105.
21. 21- Shi L, Wang X, Zhao Q, Zhang Y, Zhang L, Ren Y, Chen Z. Evaluation of packable and conventional hybrid resin composites in Class I restorations: Three-year results of a random-ized, double-blind and controlled clinical trial. Oper Dent. 2010 Jan-Feb;35(1):11-9.
22. Craig RG. Restroative dental material. 11th ed. St. Louis: The C.V Mosby Co; 2002, 189-212.
23. Shortall AC, Uctasli S, Marquis PM. Fracture resistance of anterior, posterior and universal light activated composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2001 Jan-Feb;26(1):87-96.
24. Farid MR, Abdel-Mawla EA. Fracture resistance of repaired Cl II composite resin restorations. Egypt Dent J. 1995 Oct;41(4):1507-12.
25. Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, Huth KC. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materi-als. Clin Oral Investig. 2012Apr; 16(2):489-98.
26. Davidson CL, De Gee AJ. Relaxation of polymerization contraction Stresses by flow in dental composites. J Dent Res. 1984 Feb; 63(2): 146-8.
27. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first–generation flowable composite. J Am Dent Ass. 1998 May;129(5):567-77.

XML     Print

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 25, Issue 1 (1-2013) Back to browse issues page