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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Misar, Pooja, Hiremath, Hemalatha, Harinkhere, Chhaya, Sonawane, Shailendra S., Sharma, Vinay, Rana, Kuldeep Singh
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