Abstract
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Cusp Coverage with Composite Versus Unsupported Enamel Reinforced with Composite in Posterior Dental Restorations
Highlights
Premolars are more likely than molars to be subjected to lateral forces of more detrimental nature; fracture is a concern, in maxillary premolars because their anatomy somehow eases separation of the cusps during mastication.(1,2) Fractures in unsupported tooth structure, especially after MOD restorations, can lead to replacement of the restoration and even extraction if the tooth is unrestorable.(3,4)Cavity preparation design and the type of restorative material are among the important items influencing the fracture resistance of restored teeth.(5,6) The fracture mainly occurs when the marginal ridge is thin or totally removed.(7)Numerous studies have revealed the importance of residual dental structure in increasing fracture strength
This study is a comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of cusp coverage with composite resin versus unsupported enamel reinforced with composite resin in posterior dental restorations
In the present study, the use of overlay direct resin composite provided 66% of the fracture resistance of sound teeth according to the following formula (Table 1): The mean±standard deviation (SD) of fracture load was 1834.62±104.04 N in group 1, 750.34±147.46 N in group 2, and 1211.30±210.85 N in group 3
Summary
Numerous studies have revealed the importance of residual dental structure in increasing fracture strength. Restoring carious lesions or small dental defects with composite is more conservative compared to restoration with amalgam.(16,17) it has always been a question that whether we can keep the intact but unsupported enamel to maintain aesthetics in addition to having sufficient strength against occlusal forces. This study is a comparative evaluation of the fracture strength of cusp coverage with composite resin versus unsupported enamel reinforced with composite resin in posterior dental restorations. We aimed to evaluate the fracture strength of cusp coverage with composite versus unsupported enamel reinforced with composite in posterior restorations. Conclusion: Using composite in restoring unsupported enamel must be combined with cusp coverage to increase fracture strength
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
