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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghajari, Masoud Fallahinejad, Ghasemi, Amir, Moradi, Arash Yousefi, Sanjari, Khashayar
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