Abstract

Purpose To compare and evaluate the effects of different indirect composite onlay and/or core buildup materials on the fracture resistance and fracture mode of restored endodontically treated premolars.Methods Two conventional handmade indirect composite resins (SR Nexco (NC) and Ceramage (CM)) and two core buildup materials, dual-cure composite resin (MultiCore Flow (MC)), and short fiber-reinforced composite resin (EverX Posterior (EXP)), were selected. Sixty maxillary premolars were randomly divided into six groups (n=10). Group 1 included intact teeth (INT; positive control). Mesio-occluso-distal cavity preparation and endodontic treatment was performed on the remaining premolars. Group 2 was restored with polymer-reinforced zinc oxide eugenol intermediate restorative material (IRM; negative control), whereas the experimental groups (groups 3-6) were restored with core buildup material and indirect composite onlay (MC_NC, MC_CM, EXP_NC, and EXP_CM). The specimens received compressive loading using a universal testing machine, at 45° to the long axis with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Fracture modes were visually analyzed. Fracture resistance was measured and statistically analyzed using two-way and one-way ANOVA (α=0.05).Results Only the type of indirect composite onlay affected the fracture resistance of the experimental groups (P=0.009). The MC_CM group showed the highest fracture resistance, which was significantly higher than that of the MC_NC group (P=0.031). No statistically significant differences were found between the INT group and other experimental groups(P>0.05). All groups had a greater incidence of restorable than unrestorable failures.Conclusions The type of indirect composite onlay affected the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated maxillary premolars.

Full Text
Published version (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