Cargando…
Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials
BACKGROUND: To compare and evaluate the strength rendering capacity of three restorative materials in tooth model simulated as immature teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 80 human maxillary permanent central incisors scheduled for periodontal extraction were collected, and an imma...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9006159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35432792 |
_version_ | 1784686610307088384 |
---|---|
author | Misar, Pooja Hiremath, Hemalatha Harinkhere, Chhaya Sonawane, Shailendra S. Sharma, Vinay Rana, Kuldeep Singh |
author_facet | Misar, Pooja Hiremath, Hemalatha Harinkhere, Chhaya Sonawane, Shailendra S. Sharma, Vinay Rana, Kuldeep Singh |
author_sort | Misar, Pooja |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: To compare and evaluate the strength rendering capacity of three restorative materials in tooth model simulated as immature teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 80 human maxillary permanent central incisors scheduled for periodontal extraction were collected, and an immature tooth model was prepared using a 3 mm twist drill. To simulate single-visit apical barrier, all the teeth were prepared with peso number 1–6. The teeth were segregated into three experimental and a control group. The experimental groups (n = 20) comprised of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), Biodentine, and glass ionomer cement. The fracture resistance of all the teeth was tested using universal testing machine. The final reading of the applied load to cause fracture was noted and later was subjected to statistical analysis, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and the level of significance was fixed at 5%. Student's t-test was applied to compare values among experimental groups RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the values of peak load resulting in fracture among experimental groups which was observed statistically (P ≤ 0.001). FRC exhibited superior reinforcing capacity (mean: 1199.7 N) among the experimental materials followed by Biodentine and Bioglass R. The lowest value to fracture was observed in control group (mean: 236.7 N). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that FRC could substantially contribute positively in reinforcing the simulated thin-walled immature roots. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9006159 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | Wolters Kluwer - Medknow |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-90061592022-04-14 Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials Misar, Pooja Hiremath, Hemalatha Harinkhere, Chhaya Sonawane, Shailendra S. Sharma, Vinay Rana, Kuldeep Singh Dent Res J (Isfahan) Original Article BACKGROUND: To compare and evaluate the strength rendering capacity of three restorative materials in tooth model simulated as immature teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this in vitro study, 80 human maxillary permanent central incisors scheduled for periodontal extraction were collected, and an immature tooth model was prepared using a 3 mm twist drill. To simulate single-visit apical barrier, all the teeth were prepared with peso number 1–6. The teeth were segregated into three experimental and a control group. The experimental groups (n = 20) comprised of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), Biodentine, and glass ionomer cement. The fracture resistance of all the teeth was tested using universal testing machine. The final reading of the applied load to cause fracture was noted and later was subjected to statistical analysis, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and the level of significance was fixed at 5%. Student's t-test was applied to compare values among experimental groups RESULTS: There was a significant difference in the values of peak load resulting in fracture among experimental groups which was observed statistically (P ≤ 0.001). FRC exhibited superior reinforcing capacity (mean: 1199.7 N) among the experimental materials followed by Biodentine and Bioglass R. The lowest value to fracture was observed in control group (mean: 236.7 N). CONCLUSION: The results indicate that FRC could substantially contribute positively in reinforcing the simulated thin-walled immature roots. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-03-21 /pmc/articles/PMC9006159/ /pubmed/35432792 Text en Copyright: © 2022 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 Misar, Pooja Hiremath, Hemalatha Harinkhere, Chhaya Sonawane, Shailendra S. Sharma, Vinay Rana, Kuldeep Singh Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title | Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title_full | Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title_fullStr | Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title_full_unstemmed | Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title_short | Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
title_sort | reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9006159/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35432792 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT misarpooja reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials AT hiremathhemalatha reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials AT harinkherechhaya reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials AT sonawaneshailendras reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials AT sharmavinay reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials AT ranakuldeepsingh reinforcinganimmaturetoothmodelusingthreedifferentrestorativematerials |