Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Print this page Email this page Users Online: 154


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 2  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 144-148

Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with MOD cavity using different techniques of fiber insertion


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bulent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
3 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University, Tokat, Turkey
4 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey
5 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cumhuriyet University, Sivas, Turkey
6 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey

Date of Web Publication29-Oct-2014

Correspondence Address:
Omer Kirmah
Departments of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2321-4619.143598

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of fiber by using different techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted human molars were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 10). Teeth in Groups 2-4 received root canal treatment and a MOD cavity preparation. Group 1 served as control. Group 2 was restored with composite resin. In Group 3, the fiber was inserted into the cavities in buccal to lingual direction by coating the occlusal one-third of the buccal wall to the occlusal one-third of the lingual wall, and lastly, the teeth were restored with composite resin. In Group 4, the flowable resin was coated inside the cavities with the fiber, as Group 3 was before restoring teeth with composite resin. Compressive loading of the teeth was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc tests. Results: Fracture resistance values of all the groups were compared; the differences between Groups 2 and 3 or Groups 2 and 4 were found to be statistically significant. Conclusions: As a result, use of the fiber under composite resin with a flowable resin increased fracture strength to MOD cavities.

Keywords: Endodontically treated, fiber, fracture resistance, mesio-occlusal-distal preparation


How to cite this article:
Kirmah O, Sahin O, Aytac F, Sari F, Tugut F, Kustarci A. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with MOD cavity using different techniques of fiber insertion . J Res Dent 2014;2:144-8

How to cite this URL:
Kirmah O, Sahin O, Aytac F, Sari F, Tugut F, Kustarci A. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with MOD cavity using different techniques of fiber insertion . J Res Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2020 Aug 15];2:144-8. Available from: http://www.jresdent.org/text.asp?2014/2/3/144/143598


  Introduction Top


The teeth with healthy pulps are more resistant to fracture than endodontically treated teeth because of reduced dentinal elasticity, substantial loss of dentine, [1] and lower water content. [2],[3] The loss of anatomical structures due to caries and tooth preparation is the key reason for the fracture. [4]

An ideal restoration for these teeth is able to preserve the remaining tooth structure, maintain the aesthetics and function, and prevent the microleakage. Following endodontic treatment, full cast crown restorations, [5],[6] complex amalgam restorations, [7],[8] composite materials, or aesthetic restorations for inlays/onlays (composites/ceramics) can be used for final restorations.

Bonding systems, restorative materials, and conservative preparation techniques continue to evolve. The use of direct composite restoration in posterior teeth has become increasingly more popular. Cavity preparation procedures for all conservative restorations play an important role in the fracture of the cusps [9] and polymerization shrinkage of composite resins (CRs), especially for endodontically treated teeth. [10],[11] This result facilitates microleakage, which could promote secondary caries and pulpal irritation in vital teeth. [12] The incremental placement techniques increase in importance to minimize the development of stresses. In addition, polymerization shrinkage is compensated for by flow of the composite. A rigid bond interface between the resin composite and tooth structure generates contraction stresses at the bonding interface. [13] These stresses can be reduced by several methods. One method is the application of low viscosity resin between the bonding agent and the restorative resin to act as a "stress breaker" that can relieve contraction stresses. [14],[15]

The use of CR materials in endodontically treated teeth with mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity is preferred because it is cheaper than other restorations. Furthermore, the procedure is a very conservative method and is less time-consuming. Of course, the development of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) technology is particularly important for this reason. FRC has been used in the laboratory for fabrication of single crowns, full and partial coverage fixed partial dentures, [16],[17] periodontal splints, and chairside fixed partial dentures; [18],[19],[20] the fiber must possess adequate modulus and strength to function successfully in the mouth. [21],[22]

Several researchers [23],[24] have investigated the effect of FRC on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth through different methods. Belli et al. [23] reported that the fracture resistance of molar teeth may increase if the insertion of a piece of polyethylene fiber into the cavity in the gingival and occlusal third method is used. Another study [24] showed that a ribbon of glass fiber in the occlusal third of the restoration was an effective method to fracture resistance. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of fiber using different techniques on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity. The null hypothesis was that increased fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with different fiber locations.


  Materials and Methods Top


Forty extracted human mandibular molar teeth were used in this study. All the teeth were scaled to remove the adhering soft tissue/calculus and stored in distilled water. Teeth received endodontic treatment, followed by preparation of MOD cavities without Group 1, and were randomly distributed into four groups of 10 teeth each. The teeth were prepared as follows:

Group 1. Ten intact teeth served as the control group. Access cavities were prepared using a high-speed bur and water spray, and the root canals were instrumented 1 mm short of the apical foramen with ProTaper NiTi rotary files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in experimental groups. Following the instrumentation, canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH Plus root canal sealer (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) using a lateral condensation technique. MOD cavities were prepared in such a manner that the thickness of the buccal wall of the teeth measured 2 mm at the buccal-occlusal surface, 2.5 mm at the cement-enamel junction (CEJ), 1.5 mm at the lingual-occlusal surface, and 1.5 mm at the CEJ [Figure 1]. The teeth were then embedded in acrylic resin cylinder to the level of the CEJ.
Figure 1: Schematic view of procedures and dimensions of MOD preparation

Click here to view


Group 2. Cavities were cleaned and dried, and the Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Co., Osaka, Japan) two-step self-etch adhesive system was applied to the cavities according to the manufacturer's instructions. Primer was applied for 20 seconds and dried gently. Bonding agent was then applied and light cured using an LED (LEDition; Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) at 600 m W/cm for 20 seconds. Cavities were then restored with CR (Gradia Direct; GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) using an incremental technique and cured for 40 seconds according to the manufacturer's instruction.

Group 3. After etching and bonding procedures, the cavity surfaces were coated with an FRC. Before curing, a piece of fiber (Ever Stick; Stick Teck Ltd., Turku, Finland) was prepared (12 mm long, 10 mm wide) and inserted into the cavities in a buccal to lingual direction by coating the occlusal one-third of the buccal wall to the occlusal one-third of the lingual wall [Figure 1]. After curing for 20 seconds, the cavities were restored with CR as described above.

Group 4. After the etching and bonding procedure, flowable resin (Natural Flow; DFL, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil) was coated inside the cavities with the FRC in a manner similar to Group 3 and cured from an occlusal direction for 20 seconds. Then, the exposed surface of the fiber was covered with CR as described above.

After all the specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 o C for 24 hours, the teeth were then mounted in a block of acrylic resin measuring 2 cm in diameter at CEJ. The specimens were placed in a universal testing machine (LF Plus; LLOYD Instruments, Ametek, England) for measuring the fracture resistance of teeth. A 5 mm diameter round stainless steel ball was positioned parallel to the long axis of the teeth and centered over the teeth until the bar just slightly contacted the occlusal surface of the restoration and the buccal and lingual cusps. Compressive loading of the teeth was performed at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min, and the force necessary to fracture each tooth was recorded in Newtons. The results of the study were evaluated statistically using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test. P values were computed and compared with statistical significance at the level of 0.05.


  Results Top


The mean of the fracture resistance values and the standard deviation for each group are presented in [Table 1]. Statistically significant differences were found among the fracture resistance values between the tested groups. Fracture resistance value of group 1 (intact teeth specimens) was significantly higher than the other groups. Restored teeth with different FRC locations with or without a flowable composite (Groups 3 and 4) lining showed significantly more fracture resistance than Group 2. No significant difference was found between Groups 3 and 4. However, the mean fracture resistance value of Group 4 was higher than the mean value of Group 3.
Table 1: Mean fracture resistance and standard deviation for each groups

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The results obtained in this study demonstrated that an increase in fracture resistance values was observed by using different fiber locations on endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity. Therefore the null hypothesis was accepted.

Restoration of the teeth is an essential final step of root canal treatment. But to reinforce the tooth structure is an important aim, not only to repair tooth structure, but also to provide an effective seal between the canal system and mouth. Following the endodontic treatment, the clinician can select an alternative situation for a fracture risk to the restorations. A full crown is the most preferable situation. However, the conservative treatments for CR restoration, with or without FRC, may be desirable to others because adhesive restorations allow a more efficient transfer and distribution of functional stresses across bonding interface to the tooth structure. [25],[26] Researchers [23],[24] have evaluated fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different techniques.

In the current study, the control group had a mean fracture resistance of 1648 N and Group 2 (only dentin bonding and CR applied) had a mean fracture resistance of 695 N, which were the highest and lowest values, respectively, and there was a significant difference between them. These results are in agreement with the previous studies. [23],[24],[27],[28],[29] In a previous study, Belli et al. [23] evaluated the reinforcement effect of polyethylene fiber in root-filled teeth using two restoration techniques; they found increased fracture resistance to use of polyethylene fiber before or after the restoration. Also, they reported that the resistance to fracture of teeth increased significantly when the fiber was placed on the occlusal surface of the restoration from a buccal to lingual direction. In another study, they evaluated to effect of fiber insertion on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity. As a result, they found that inserting a leno-woven ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene ribbon fiber in endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity significantly increased fracture strength. [24] In a similar study, Navimipour et al. [28] evaluated the effect of different methods of fiber insertion on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars, and they reported that glass fiber, inserted from the buccal to lingual aspect in the occlusal portion of the restoration, increased fracture resistance. Also, Oskoee et al. [30] found that the fracture resistance in the occlusal fiber group was significantly higher than in the other groups. In the present study, when the fiber was placed into the cavities in a buccal to lingual direction by coating the occlusal one-third of the buccal wall to the occlusal one-third of the lingual wall, with or without flowable resin, significantly higher fracture resistance was observed. However, Luthria et al.[31] evaluated the effect of polyethylene fiber and composite-impregnated glass fiber on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth, and they found that the fracture resistance of the composite-impregnated glass fiber reinforced group was much higher. According to the results of these studies, the different techniques of using the fiber can be important for increased fracture resistance of the restorations.

On the other hand, Rodrigues et al.[29] reported that the terms of fracture resistance of molar teeth with MOD cavity, with or without glass fiber, were not different, and the insertion of glass fibers into MOD cavities was not an effective technique to reinforce teeth. This result contrasts the result of the present study. This difference could be because the fiber was inserted into cavities by a different technique, and it was positioned over the adhesive system.

Hernandez et al. [7] reported some advantage of bonding, such as the high-bond strength to tooth structure and increased resistance to fracture, and Takada et al. [32] stated that the high viscosity bonding agents may release contraction stresses. Alhadainy et al. [33] reported that the high-viscosity bonding agents act as a stress absorber until restorations occur. The present study showed that inserting flowable composite into the cavities in a buccal to lingual direction before coating the cavity with fiber would provide an increase in fracture resistance. This was theorized based on the concept that the presence of the glass or polyethylene network would create a change in the stress dynamics at the restoration/adhesive resin interface. In agreement with the present study, Belli et al. [24] reported that fracture resistance increased when fiber was embedded into a bed of flowable resin.

As part of the results of this study, the use of different techniques to insert the fiber into cavities should be supported by clinical applications in order to strengthen the restorations and tooth structure. Also, the evaluation of the clinical effects of each technique will enhance the preferred variation of fiber locations.


  Conclusions Top


Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions were drawn:

  • MOD cavities reduced fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth
  • Use of flowable composite with fiber under composite restoration significantly increased fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with MOD cavities
  • The different techniques of using the fiber can be important for increasing the fracture resistance of the restorations.


 
  References Top

1.
Johnson JK, Schwartz NL, Blackwell RT. Evaluation and restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1976;93:597-605.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Rosen H. Operative procedures on mutilated endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1961;11:972-86.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Assif D, Nissan J, Gafni Y, Gordon M. Assessment of the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:462-5.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Faria AC, Rodrigues RC, de Almeida Antunes RP, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Endodontically treated teeth: Characteristics and considerations to restore them. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:69-74.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Goerig AC, Mueninghoff LA. Management of the endodontically treated tooth. Part II: Technique. J Prosthet Dent 1983;49:491-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Hudis SI, Goldstein GR. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:33-8.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J 1994;27:281-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Farik B, Munksgaard EC, Kreiborg S, Andreasen JO. Adhesive bonding of fragmented anterior teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998;14:119-23.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Goel VK, Khera SC, Gurusami S, Chen RC. Effect of cavity depth on stresses in a restored tooth. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:174-83.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15:512-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: A study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:780-4.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Brännström M. Communication between the oral cavity and the dental pulp associated with restorative treatment. Oper Dent 1984;9:57-68.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Nikolaenko SA, Lohbauer U, Roggendorf M, Petschelt A, Dasch W, Frankenberger R. Influence of c-factor and layering technique on microtensile bond strength to dentin. Dent Mater 2004;20:579-85.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal integrity related to bond strength and strain capacity of composite resin restorative systems. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:658-64.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P, Inokoshi S, Braem M, Vanherle G. Factors affecting adhesion to mineralized tissues. Oper Dent 1992;5:111-24.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Edelhoff D, Spiekermann H, Yildirim M. Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2001;32:269-81.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Vallittu PK, Sevelius C. Resin-bonded, glass fiber-reinforced composite fixed partial dentures: A clinical study. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:413-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Freilich MA, Goldberg AJ. Preimpregnated, fiber-reinforced prostheses. Part II. Direct applications: splints and fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 1998;29:761-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Belli S, Ozer F. A simple method for single anterior tooth replacement. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:67-70.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Meiers JC, Freilich MA. Chairside prefabricated fiber-reinforced resin composite fixed partial dentures. Quintessence Int 2001;32:99-104.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Vallittu PK. The effect of glass fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of a provisional fixed partial denture. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:125-30.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Goldberg AJ. Fiber-reinforced composites in clinical dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence Publishers; 1999. p. 49-70.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: Comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006;39:136-42.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005;38:73-80.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Hegde MN, Hegde P, Bhandary S, Deepika K. An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:36-9.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
26.
Gogna R, Jagadis S, Shashikal K. A comparative in vitro study of microleakage by a radioactive isotope and compressive strength of three nanofilled composite resin restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:128-31.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
27.
Belli S, Cobankara FK, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, Karbhari V. The effect of fiber insertion on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity and reattached fractured lingual cusps. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006;79:35-41.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.
Jafari Navimipour E, Ebrahimi Chaharom ME, Alizadeh Oskoee P, Mohammadi N, Bahari M, Firouzmandi M. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin along with glass fiber ýnsertion in different positions. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2012;6:125-30.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.
Rodrigues FB, Paranhos MP, Spohr AM, Oshima HM, Carlini B, Burnett LH Jr. Fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth restored with glass fibre bundles. Int Endod J 2010;43:356-62.  Back to cited text no. 29
    
30.
Oskoee PA, Ajami AA, Navimipour EJ, Oskoee SS, Sadjadi J. The effect of three composite fiber insertion techniques on fracture resistance of root-filled teeth. J Endod 2009;35:413-6.  Back to cited text no. 30
    
31.
Luthria A, Srirekha A, Hegde J, Karale R, Tyagi S, Bhaskaran S. The reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre and composite impregnated glass fibre on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:372-6.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
32.
Takada A, Uno S, Sasaki T, Tanaka T, Kobayashi Y, Shimokobe H. The mechanical properties and marginal adaptation of light-cured compsite restorations polymerized under a low light source intensity. Japanese J Conserv Dent 1994;37:1090-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
    
33.
Alhadainy HA, Abdalla AI. 2-year clinical evaluation of dentin bonding systems. Am J Dent 1996;9:77-9.  Back to cited text no. 33
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed3253    
    Printed68    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded475    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]