Cargando…

Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars using traditional and conservative access cavity preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 100 extracted healthy human mandibular molars were selected and divided...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shirani, Farzaneh, saatchi, Masoud, Shirani, Mehrangiz, Jafari, Niloufar
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10359140/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7247375
_version_ 1785075812272177152
author Shirani, Farzaneh
saatchi, Masoud
Shirani, Mehrangiz
Jafari, Niloufar
author_facet Shirani, Farzaneh
saatchi, Masoud
Shirani, Mehrangiz
Jafari, Niloufar
author_sort Shirani, Farzaneh
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars using traditional and conservative access cavity preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 100 extracted healthy human mandibular molars were selected and divided into 10 groups (n = 10). Healthy teeth in one group were considered the control group. In three groups, traditional access cavity preparation was done (groups A) without two marginal ridges (A1), with one marginal ridge (A2), and with two marginal ridges (A3). In three groups (group B), two separate access cavities with a dentinoenamel roof without two marginal ridges (B1), with one marginal ridge (B2), and with two marginal ridges (B3) were prepared. In three other groups (groups C), two separate access cavities were prepared only with a dentinal roof without two marginal ridges (C1), with one marginal ridge (C2), and with two marginal ridges (C3), on which root canal treatment was performed afterward. Then, these teeth were subjected to force until fracture. The fracture force and fracture mode of each tooth were recorded and compared between groups by ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc, and chi-square tests using SPSS ver. 23 (IBM, Somers, NJ, USA). RESULTS: The control teeth had the highest mean fracture force (2804.5 ± 338.5 N), followed by a conservative access cavity with a dentinoenamel roof and two marginal ridges (2360.4 ± 181.72 N) and a conservative access cavity with a dentinoenamel roof and one marginal ridge (1812.8 ± 263.9 N), respectively. The lowest mean fracture force was found for the conventional access cavity group without two marginal ridges (399.4 ± 95.2 N). CONCLUSION: In the condition of this study, with two separate access cavities in mandibular molars and maintenance of the marginal ridges, it is possible to provide teeth with higher fracture resistance against occlusal forces.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10359140
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-103591402023-07-21 Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study Shirani, Farzaneh saatchi, Masoud Shirani, Mehrangiz Jafari, Niloufar Biomed Res Int Research Article INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars using traditional and conservative access cavity preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 100 extracted healthy human mandibular molars were selected and divided into 10 groups (n = 10). Healthy teeth in one group were considered the control group. In three groups, traditional access cavity preparation was done (groups A) without two marginal ridges (A1), with one marginal ridge (A2), and with two marginal ridges (A3). In three groups (group B), two separate access cavities with a dentinoenamel roof without two marginal ridges (B1), with one marginal ridge (B2), and with two marginal ridges (B3) were prepared. In three other groups (groups C), two separate access cavities were prepared only with a dentinal roof without two marginal ridges (C1), with one marginal ridge (C2), and with two marginal ridges (C3), on which root canal treatment was performed afterward. Then, these teeth were subjected to force until fracture. The fracture force and fracture mode of each tooth were recorded and compared between groups by ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc, and chi-square tests using SPSS ver. 23 (IBM, Somers, NJ, USA). RESULTS: The control teeth had the highest mean fracture force (2804.5 ± 338.5 N), followed by a conservative access cavity with a dentinoenamel roof and two marginal ridges (2360.4 ± 181.72 N) and a conservative access cavity with a dentinoenamel roof and one marginal ridge (1812.8 ± 263.9 N), respectively. The lowest mean fracture force was found for the conventional access cavity group without two marginal ridges (399.4 ± 95.2 N). CONCLUSION: In the condition of this study, with two separate access cavities in mandibular molars and maintenance of the marginal ridges, it is possible to provide teeth with higher fracture resistance against occlusal forces. Hindawi 2023-07-13 /pmc/articles/PMC10359140/ /pubmed/37483655 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7247375 Text en Copyright © 2023 Farzaneh Shirani et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Shirani, Farzaneh
saatchi, Masoud
Shirani, Mehrangiz
Jafari, Niloufar
Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title_full Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title_fullStr Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title_short Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Conservative and Ultraconservative Access Cavity Designs with Different Treatment Modalities: An In Vitro Study
title_sort evaluation of the fracture resistance of conservative and ultraconservative access cavity designs with different treatment modalities: an in vitro study
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10359140/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37483655
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/7247375
work_keys_str_mv AT shiranifarzaneh evaluationofthefractureresistanceofconservativeandultraconservativeaccesscavitydesignswithdifferenttreatmentmodalitiesaninvitrostudy
AT saatchimasoud evaluationofthefractureresistanceofconservativeandultraconservativeaccesscavitydesignswithdifferenttreatmentmodalitiesaninvitrostudy
AT shiranimehrangiz evaluationofthefractureresistanceofconservativeandultraconservativeaccesscavitydesignswithdifferenttreatmentmodalitiesaninvitrostudy
AT jafariniloufar evaluationofthefractureresistanceofconservativeandultraconservativeaccesscavitydesignswithdifferenttreatmentmodalitiesaninvitrostudy