Effect of hybrid layer and thickness on stress distribution of cervical wedge-shaped restorations.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this finite elemental stress analysis study was to evaluate the effect of a hybrid layer and the hybrid layer thickness on the shear stress distribution in mandibular premolar teeth under occlusal loading.


METHODS
The mandibular premolar tooth was selected based on the anatomical measurements suggested by Wheeler. The analysis was performed with a computer with the SAP 2000 structural analysis program. Three different mathematical models were evaluated; 1) composite restoration without a hybrid layer 2) composite restoration with a 1.5 mum thick hybrid layer and 3) composite restoration with a 3 mum thick hybrid layer. A total of 200 N of occlusal loading force was simulated from the buccal tubercule and central fossa of the premolar tooth. The findings were drawn by the Saplot program.


RESULTS
In model B, the output showed that hybrid layer reduced the shear stress concentration especially on gingival margin of the composite. Similarly shear stress intensity was decreased by a thick hybrid layer in model C, especially on the gingival margin of the composite.


CONCLUSIONS
The hybrid layer and its thickness plays an important role on stress distribution and intensity in cervical restorations.
Eliguzeloglu
Evrim
E
DDS, PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Yuzuncuyil, Van, Turkey.
Eraslan
Oguz
O
Omurlu
Huma
H
Eskitascıoglu
Gurcan
G
Belli
Sema
S
J Dent. 1998 Jan;26(1):1-20
9479920
Eur J Oral Sci. 2003 Apr;111(2):149-54
12648267
Am J Dent. 1991 Oct;4(5):247-50
1810336
J Biomed Eng. 1993 Nov;15(6):505-9
8277756
J Biomed Mater Res. 1982 May;16(3):265-73
7085687
Oper Dent. 1993 Jul-Aug;18(4):138-43
8152981
J Am Dent Assoc. 1991 May;122(5):41-7
1646246
J Oral Rehabil. 2002 Feb;29(2):188-93
11856399
J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Feb;31(2):117-23
15009594
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15(5):263-71
14620657
J Oral Implantol. 1997;23(3):104-11
9477847
Oper Dent. 2006 Nov-Dec;31(6):710-8
17153982
Dent Mater. 2000 Nov;16(6):412-9
10967190
J Oral Implantol. 1998;24(2):80-8
9835834
Dent Mater. 1999 Mar;15(2):128-37
10551104
Dent Mater. 2005 Sep;21(9):864-81
16009415
J Prosthet Dent. 1996 May;75(5):487-94
8709012
Oper Dent. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):338-45
18505226
J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Aug;135(8):1109-18; quiz 1163-5
15387049
J Biomech. 2001 Oct;34(10):1269-77
11522306
J Dent. 1980 Mar;8(1):27-34
6989868
J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005 Aug;74(2):665-8
15973689
J Dent Res. 1993 Oct;72(10):1434-42
8408887
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Jun;13(3):334-41
12010166
Quintessence Int. 1999 Apr;30(4):249-57
10635252
J Dent. 2001 Aug;29(6):435-41
11520593
Quintessence Int. 2003 Jul-Aug;34(7):526-33
12946071
Quintessence Int. 1995 Oct;26(10):733-8
8935117
J Dent. 2004 Mar;32(3):173-96
15001284
J Periodontal Res. 1984 May;19(3):238-46
6235340
Quintessence Int. 2000 Apr;31(4):267-74
11203935
Dent Mater. 2002 Jun;18(4):295-303
11992906
Pesqui Odontol Bras. 2002 Apr-Jun;16(2):115-20
12131983
J Oral Rehabil. 1999 May;26(5):422-7
10373090
J Dent. 1997 Nov;25(6):485-91
9604579
J Esthet Dent. 1991 Jan-Feb;3(1):14-9
1873064