An in vitro Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of endodontically treated Teeth with Different Restorative Materials.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of the present study is to compare and assess the fracture resistance of root canal treated teeth with different restorative materials.


METHODS
The present in vitro study was carried out on seventy-five freshly extracted, noncarious, single-canal human lower-first premolars with similar anatomic characteristics. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups with 15 teeth being present in each group. Group I is control group (no alteration done), group II is restored with silver amalgam after endodontic therapy, group III is restored with posterior composite after end-odontic therapy, group IV is restored with posterior glass ionomer cement (GIC) after endodontic therapy, and group V is restored with miracle mix after endodontic therapy. Universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture strength. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) test followed by Tukey's post hoc test were used to determine the significant difference between each group. A p-value of < 0.05 was considered as statistically significant.


RESULTS
The mean fracture resistance of control group showed highest fracture resistance with a mean Newton of 1083.33 ± 136.78. Among the restorative material, the highest fracture resistance was shown by teeth restored by composite (845.46 ± 47.36), followed by silver amalgam (845.46 ± 47.36). There was statistically significant difference among all the restorative materials compared with the control group (p < 0.05). However, among the teeth restored with silver amalgam and miracle mix, there was no statistical significance (p > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
The present study concludes that composites are found to be having more fracture resistance followed by silver amalgam on endodontically treated premolar teeth.


CONCLUSIONS
Restoring nonvital teeth represents a major challenge for clinicians as they are extensively damaged due to caries and endodontic access preparations. With various restorative materials in the market, it becomes difficult for the clinician to choose the better restorative material for postendodontic restoration.
Senior Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre Hyderabad, Telangana, India, Phone: +919990116363, e-mail: babitamalhan@yahoo.com.
Babita
B
Sangwan
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ranchi Jharkhand, India.
Rahul
R
Rishi
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics Regional Dental College, Guwahati, Assam, India.
Mukut
M
Seal
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Jammu Jammu and Kashmir, India.
Kanav
K
Jain
Department of Prosthodontics Crowns and Bridges, Faculty of Dental Science, King George's Medical University, Lucknow Uttar Pradesh, India.
Pranjali
P
Dutt
Department of Prosthodontics, Daswani Dental College & Research Center, Kota, Rajasthan, India.
Pratim
P
Talukdar
D001641:Bicuspid; D003188:Composite Resins; D003793:Dental Restoration, Permanent / Q000379:methods*; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008422:Materials Testing; D013499:Surface Properties; D014082:Tooth Fractures / Q000517:prevention & control*; D019553:Tooth, Nonvital / Q000628:therapy*; D016896:Treatment Outcome
D003188:Composite Resins; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C078801:Miracle Mix
Access cavity; Coronal restoration; Fracture resistance; Root canal treatment.