title: Effect of two different types of fibers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with composite resin.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare the in vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities restored with two different types of fibers.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty extracted human mandibular first molars were selected for the study and randomly assigned to six groups (n = 10). Group 1 served as the control. In groups 2 through 6, endodontic access and standard MOD cavities were prepared. Following root canal treatment, group 2 was left unrestored. In group 3, the teeth were restored with composite resin (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer). In group 4, flowable composite resin (Venus, Heraeus Kulzer) was used before restoring the teeth with composite resin. In group 5, leno-woven ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene ribbon fiber (Ribbond) was inserted in the flowable resin in a buccal to lingual direction, and the teeth were then restored with composite resin. In group 6, translucent glass fiber (Vectris, Ivoclar) was adapted over the flowable resin in the bucco-lingual direction and restored with composite resin. The specimens were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 1 day. Compressive loading of the teeth was performed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean load necessary to fracture the samples was recorded in Newtons (N). Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's post-hoc test, where significance was set at p < 0.001.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The highest and the lowest mean fracture strengths were found in sound teeth (1598.8 N) and unrestored teeth (393.7 N), respectively. The mean load necessary to fracture the samples was 958.6 N in the polyethylene ribbon group (group 5), 913.2 N in the glass-fiber group (group 6), 699.7 N in teeth restored with flowable resin and composite (group 4), and 729.3 N in group 3 with composite resin alone. Statistical analysis showed significantly higher fracture resistance of both the fiber groups compared to composite resin alone (p < 0.001).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Both polyethylene ribbon and glass fiber under MOD composite restorations significantly increased fracture strength with no statistical difference between the two groups. Therefore, both polyethylene- and glassfiber- reinforced composites can be used for access cavity restorations in teeth with weakened cusps.
authors.affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Chettinad Dental College, Kelambakkkam, India. dr.sulthankhan@gmail.com
authors.forename: Sulthan Ibrahim
authors.initials: SI
authors.lastname: Khan
authors.forename: Ramachandran
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: Anupama
authors.forename: Mohanavelu
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Deepalakshmi
authors.forename: Kumarappan Senthil
authors.initials: KS
authors.lastname: Kumar
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D019245:Compressive Strength; D003736:Dental Cavity Lining; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005898:Glass; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008963:Molar; D011095:Polyethylenes; D058105:Polymerization; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000517:prevention & control*; D019553:Tooth, Nonvital
chemical_list: D003188:Composite Resins; D011095:Polyethylenes; C084063:RIBBOND; C009753:fiberglass