Keywords
How to Cite
Abstract
This study evaluated the correlation between marginal accuracy and fracture resistance of laboratory-processed resin composite (LPRC) restorations with different cavity preparation designs. Eighty human third mandibular molars were selected and divided into 8 groups (n=10): G1 – conservative (-c) inlay; G2 – extensive (-e) inlay; G3 – onlay-c with mesio-buccal cusp coverage (CC); G4 – onlay-e with mesiobuccal CC; G5 – onlay-c with buccal CC; G6 – onlay-e with buccal CC; G7 – onlay-c with total CC; G8 – onlay-e with total CC. Indirect composite restorations (SR Adoro, Ivoclar-Vivadent) were manufactured and positioned over each respective preparation. Marginal accuracy was assessed using a stereomicroscope at 3 points on buccal, lingual, mesial and distal regions (40x magnification). After adhesive cementation (Adper Single Bond 2 and Rely-X ARC, 3M ESPE) a load compressive test (0.5mm/minute) was performed. Data were recorded in mm (marginal accuracy) and Kgf (fracture resistance). In general, Pearson correlation coefficient (a=0.05) did not show significance between factors in study (r=0.073; p=0.520) but it showed significance only on G6 (r=0.702; p=0.024). Irrespective of the preparation design it seems difficult to state the clear correlation between marginal accuracy and fracture resistance of LPRC restored teeth. In this study the effect of one variable on another was negligibleReferences
Kakaboura A, Rahiotis C, Zinelis S, Al-Dhamadi YA, Silikas N, Watts DC. In vitro characterization of two laboratoryprocessed resin composites. Dent Mater. 2003; 19: 393-8.
Beschnidt SM, Strub JR. Evaluation of the marginal accuracy of different all-ceramic crown systems after simulation in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil. 1999; 26: 582-93.
Cho L, Song H, Koak J, Heo S. Marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceromer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns: effect of variations in preparation design. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 388-95.
Gemalmaz D, Ozcan M, Yoruc AB, Alkumru HN. Marginal adaptation of a sintered ceramic inlay system before and after cementation. J Oral Rehabil. 1997; 24: 646-51.
Holmes JR, Bayne SC, Holland GA, Sulik WD. Considerations in measurement of marginal fit. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62: 405-8.
Leinfelder KF, Isenberg BP, Essig ME. A new method for generating ceramic restorations: a CAD-CAM system. J Am Dent Assoc. 1989; 118: 703-7.
Soares CJ, Martins LR, Fernandes Neto AJ, Giannini M. Marginal adaptation of indirect composites and ceramic inlay systems. Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 689-94.
Yeo IS, Yang JH, Lee JB. In vitro marginal fit of three allceramic crown systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90: 459-64.
Irie M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Marginal and flexural integrity of three classes of luting cement, with early finishing and water storage. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 3-11.
Kawai K, Isenberg BP, Leinfelder KF. Effect of gap dimension on composite resin cement wear. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 53-8.
Sjogren G. Marginal and internal fit of four different types of ceramic inlays after luting. An in vitro study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1995; 53: 24-8.
Thordrup M, Isidor F, Horsted-Bindslev P. Comparison of marginal fit and microleakage of ceramic and composite inlays: an in vitro study. J Dent. 1994; 22: 147-53.
Loose M, Rosentritt M, Leibrock A, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro study of fracture strength and marginal adaptation of fibre-reinforced-composite versus all ceramic fixed partial dentures. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 1998; 6: 55-62.
Furukawa K, Inai N, Tagami J. The effects of luting resin bond to dentin on the strength of dentin supported by indirect resin composite. Dent Mater. 2002; 18: 136-42.
Cho L, Choi J, Yi YJ, Park CJ. Effect of finish line variants on marginal accuracy and fracture strength of ceramic optimized polymer/fiber-reinforced composite crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 91: 554-60.
Burke FJ. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J Dent. 1992; 20: 131-9.
Khers SC, Carpenter CW, Vetter JD, Staley RN. Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth and their fracture potential. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 64: 139-47.
Bremer BD, Geurtsen W. Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites. Am J Dent. 2001; 14: 216-20.
Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi D, de Campos E. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper Dent. 2003; 28: 127-35.
St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ, Jr., Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 551-7.
Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Pesq Odontol Bras. 2005; 19: 11-6.
Soares CJ, Soares PV, Pereira JC, Fonseca RB. Surface Treatment Protocols in the Cementation Process of Ceramic and Laboratory-Processed Composite Restorations: A Literature Review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2005; 17: 224-35.
Behr M, Rosentritt M, Ledwinsky E, Handel G. Fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of conventionally cemented fiber-reinforced composite three-unit FPDs. Int J Prosthodont. 2002; 15: 467-72.
Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Watts DC. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect composite resins: the effect of alternative luting procedures. Quintessence Int. 1994; 25: 269-75.
Burke FJ, Wilson NH, Watts DC. The effect of cavity wall taper on fracture resistance of teeth restored with resin composite inlays. Oper Dent. 1993; 18: 230-6.
Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Marginal adaptation. J Dent. 1993;21: 265-73.
Larson R, Farber B. Elementary Statistics - picturing the world. 2nd. edition ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall; 2003.
Mehl A, Kunzelmann KH, Folwaczny M, Hickel R. Stabilization effects of CAD/CAM ceramic restorations in extended MOD cavities. J Adhes Dent. 2004; 6: 239-45.
The Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences uses the Creative Commons license (CC), thus preserving the integrity of the articles in an open access environment.
Downloads
