Abstract
Unresolved controversy exists concerning the preferred cavity design and restorative technique used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars to improve their resistance to fracture under occlusal load. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance, stress distribution, and cusp deformation of endodontically treated human maxillary premolars restored with different materials. The study is divided into 2 parts. In Part I, fracture resistance and fracture mode were determined. Seventy noncarious human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 7 groups (n=10). The control group, ST, consisted of sound unprepared teeth. Teeth in the other 6 groups were endodontically treated and each received 1 of 2 cavity preparation designs: MODd, direct mesio-occlusal-distal preparation; MODi, indirect mesio-occlusal-distal preparation. Teeth were restored with 4 types of material: AM, MODd restored with amalgam; CR, MODd restored with composite resin; LPR, MODi restored with laboratory-processed composite resin; and LGC, MODi restored with leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The fracture resistance (N) was assessed under compressive load in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha =.05). Fracture modes were recorded based on the degree of tooth structure involvement and restoration damage. Statistical analysis showed that the ST group presented the highest fracture resistance values. The restored groups showed significantly higher fracture resistance values compared to the nonrestored groups. The groups restored with adhesive techniques (LPR, CR, and LGC) presented significantly higher fracture resistance values than the group restored with the nonadhesive technique (AM) (P<.001). The catastrophic fractures were prevalent in MODd, MODi, AM, and LPR groups, and less severe fractures were found in ST and LGC groups. For the CR group, there was no prevalent fracture mode. Teeth with the greatest amount of remaining tooth structure and those restored using adhesive technology showed higher fracture resistance values. There was great variation in the type of fracture among groups.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
