Influence of different transitional restorations on the fracture resistance of premolar teeth.
Controversy exists over the most favorable material and type of restoration to be used to transitionally restore teeth destined to be crowned. This in vitro study uses fracture resistance testing to compare eight different transitional restorations in maxillary premolars. Ninety sound maxillary premolars were randomly selected and allocated to nine groups, each comprising 10 teeth. One group remained unrestored and was used as the control. Teeth in the remaining groups were prepared to a standard cavity form using: a copy milling process removing the palatal cusp. Restorations were placed using amalgam with dentin pins and cavity varnish; amalgam with an amalgam bonding agent; resin composite with dentin pins and a dentin bonding agent; resin composite with a dentin bonding agent only; resin-modified glass ionomer with dentin pins; resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone and cermet with dentin pins and cermet alone. Each restored tooth was then subjected to axial loading via a bar contacting the buccal and restored palatal cusps until failure of the restored tooth occurred. The mean load-to-fracture values were statistically compared and the modes of failure recorded. It was found that the choice of restorative material and type of restoration had little effect on the fracture resistance of the restored tooth with the exception of those teeth restored with reinforced glass ionomer cement alone, which exhibited a significantly lower resistance to fracture than the other restored teeth. However, the choice of restorative material/technique did influence the mode of failure. Failure in teeth restored with resin-modified glass ionomer cement alone produced the least damage to the remaining tooth tissue when failure occurred. Consequently, this material may offer the most favorable range of properties for the transitional restoration of extensively broken-down maxillary premolar teeth destined to be crowned. Furthermore, the findings of this study fail to support the use of dentin pins in the placement of bonded build-up restorations.
Qualtrough
A J
AJ
Unit of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, University of Manchester Dental Hospital, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester M15 6FH.
Cawte
S G
SG
Wilson
N H
NH
D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001641:Bicuspid; D016722:Cermet Cements; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003188:Composite Resins; D003442:Crowns; D003723:Dental Amalgam; D003772:Dental Pins / Q000009:adverse effects; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003794:Dental Restoration, Temporary / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D019544:Equipment Failure Analysis; D006801:Humans; D008437:Maxilla; D011897:Random Allocation; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000209:etiology / Q000517:prevention & control*
D016722:Cermet Cements; D003188:Composite Resins; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D003723:Dental Amalgam