Cargando…
Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with incremental and bulk-fill composite application techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in-vitro experimental study, 36 extracted primary molars were nonrandomly (selectively) divi...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8045525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33889345 |
_version_ | 1783678690532524032 |
---|---|
author | Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghasemi, Amir Moradi, Arash Yousefi Sanjari, Khashayar |
author_facet | Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghasemi, Amir Moradi, Arash Yousefi Sanjari, Khashayar |
author_sort | Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with incremental and bulk-fill composite application techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in-vitro experimental study, 36 extracted primary molars were nonrandomly (selectively) divided into three groups of 12 each. All teeth underwent conventional pulpotomy treatment, and mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared in such a way that the buccolingual width of the preparation was two-thirds of the intercuspal distance, and the depth of the buccal and lingual walls was 4 mm. The teeth were then restored as follows: Group 1 (control) was restored with amalgam, Group 2 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the incremental technique, and Group 3 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the bulk-fill technique. The restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling and then underwent fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Fracture resistance of groups was compared using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test. RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance was 1291.47 ± 603.88 N in the amalgam, 1283.08 ± 594.57 N in the Tetric N-Ceram incremental, and 1939.06 ± 134.47 N in the Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill group. The difference in this regard between Group 3 and Groups 1 and 2 was statistically significant (P = 0.019 and P= 0.035, respectively). CONCLUSION: Bulk-fill composite is recommended for reinforcing the remaining tooth structure after the primary molar pulpotomy procedure. Time-saving characteristics of this material are clinically important for reducing appointment time for children. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8045525 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-80455252021-04-21 Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghasemi, Amir Moradi, Arash Yousefi Sanjari, Khashayar Dent Res J (Isfahan) Original Article BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with incremental and bulk-fill composite application techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in-vitro experimental study, 36 extracted primary molars were nonrandomly (selectively) divided into three groups of 12 each. All teeth underwent conventional pulpotomy treatment, and mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared in such a way that the buccolingual width of the preparation was two-thirds of the intercuspal distance, and the depth of the buccal and lingual walls was 4 mm. The teeth were then restored as follows: Group 1 (control) was restored with amalgam, Group 2 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the incremental technique, and Group 3 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the bulk-fill technique. The restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling and then underwent fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Fracture resistance of groups was compared using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test. RESULTS: The mean fracture resistance was 1291.47 ± 603.88 N in the amalgam, 1283.08 ± 594.57 N in the Tetric N-Ceram incremental, and 1939.06 ± 134.47 N in the Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill group. The difference in this regard between Group 3 and Groups 1 and 2 was statistically significant (P = 0.019 and P= 0.035, respectively). CONCLUSION: Bulk-fill composite is recommended for reinforcing the remaining tooth structure after the primary molar pulpotomy procedure. Time-saving characteristics of this material are clinically important for reducing appointment time for children. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020-12-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8045525/ /pubmed/33889345 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Dental Research Journal https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms. |
spellingShingle | Original Article Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad Ghasemi, Amir Moradi, Arash Yousefi Sanjari, Khashayar Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title | Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title_full | Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title_fullStr | Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title_full_unstemmed | Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title_short | Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
title_sort | fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: incremental versus bulk-fill techniques |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8045525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33889345 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT ghajarimasoudfallahinejad fractureresistanceofpulpotomizedandcompositerestoredprimarymolarsincrementalversusbulkfilltechniques AT ghasemiamir fractureresistanceofpulpotomizedandcompositerestoredprimarymolarsincrementalversusbulkfilltechniques AT moradiarashyousefi fractureresistanceofpulpotomizedandcompositerestoredprimarymolarsincrementalversusbulkfilltechniques AT sanjarikhashayar fractureresistanceofpulpotomizedandcompositerestoredprimarymolarsincrementalversusbulkfilltechniques |