Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
Shiran Aharonian, Andrea Dora Schachter, Mahmoud Masri, Tanya Sella Tunis, Sigalit Blumer, Tamar Brosh, Tal Ratson
{"title":"Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques","authors":"Shiran Aharonian,&nbsp;Andrea Dora Schachter,&nbsp;Mahmoud Masri,&nbsp;Tanya Sella Tunis,&nbsp;Sigalit Blumer,&nbsp;Tamar Brosh,&nbsp;Tal Ratson","doi":"10.1111/edt.12909","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background/Aim</h3>\n \n <p>Anterior teeth are prone to traumatic dental injuries (TDIs). Although a number of techniques ranging from original tooth fragment reattachment (TFR) to direct composite restoration (DCR) can be used to restore uncomplicated crown fractures, there is no consensus on which method is best. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of bovine incisors restored by two different techniques (TFR and DCR) in three different fracture models.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Materials and Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Sixty extracted bovine lower incisors were randomly divided into three groups (<i>n</i> = 20). Angle, oblique, or transverse sections of all the teeth in a group were prepared by using a disk. The cut surfaces were scanned, and the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the enamel and dentin were measured. Half the teeth in each group were restored by DCR (<i>n</i> = 10) and the other half by TFR (<i>n</i> = 10). The forces required to fracture the restored teeth were then measured using a Universal testing machine, and the fracture modes were analyzed (cohesive, adhesive, or mixed).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>No statistically significant differences between the TFR and DCR restorations were detected for total and enamel CSAs in any of the restoration shapes (<i>p</i> &gt; .067). The fracture forces required to break DCR angle and transverse restorations were significantly greater than for the corresponding shapes restored with TFR (<i>p</i> &lt; .033). However, the difference in the forces needed to fracture oblique section restorations by DCR or TFR was not statistically significant (<i>p</i> = .239), despite a similar trend (143.4 ± 51 N and 120.9 ± 25 N, respectively).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>This study revealed that a greater force is required to fracture teeth restored by the DCR than by the TFR technique, especially for a transverse section. This demonstrates that restoring a fractured tooth provides a superior outcome compared to reattaching the fractured fragment.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/edt.12909","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/edt.12909","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/Aim

Anterior teeth are prone to traumatic dental injuries (TDIs). Although a number of techniques ranging from original tooth fragment reattachment (TFR) to direct composite restoration (DCR) can be used to restore uncomplicated crown fractures, there is no consensus on which method is best. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of bovine incisors restored by two different techniques (TFR and DCR) in three different fracture models.

Materials and Methods

Sixty extracted bovine lower incisors were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20). Angle, oblique, or transverse sections of all the teeth in a group were prepared by using a disk. The cut surfaces were scanned, and the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the enamel and dentin were measured. Half the teeth in each group were restored by DCR (n = 10) and the other half by TFR (n = 10). The forces required to fracture the restored teeth were then measured using a Universal testing machine, and the fracture modes were analyzed (cohesive, adhesive, or mixed).

Results

No statistically significant differences between the TFR and DCR restorations were detected for total and enamel CSAs in any of the restoration shapes (p > .067). The fracture forces required to break DCR angle and transverse restorations were significantly greater than for the corresponding shapes restored with TFR (p < .033). However, the difference in the forces needed to fracture oblique section restorations by DCR or TFR was not statistically significant (p = .239), despite a similar trend (143.4 ± 51 N and 120.9 ± 25 N, respectively).

Conclusion

This study revealed that a greater force is required to fracture teeth restored by the DCR than by the TFR technique, especially for a transverse section. This demonstrates that restoring a fractured tooth provides a superior outcome compared to reattaching the fractured fragment.

Abstract Image

牙片再植与直接复合修复法修复牛门牙的抗骨折性比较。
背景/目的:前牙易发生外伤性牙损伤(TDIs)。虽然从原牙碎片再附着(TFR)到直接复合修复(DCR)等许多技术都可以用于修复简单的冠骨折,但对于哪种方法最好还没有达成共识。研究了三种不同骨折模型下,采用TFR和DCR两种不同修复技术修复的牛门牙的抗骨折性。材料与方法:拔牙牛下门牙60颗,随机分为3组(n = 20)。一组所有牙齿的角、斜或横切面均用圆盘准备。扫描切面,测量牙本质和牙釉质的截面积(CSA)。两组各有一半采用DCR修复(n = 10),另一半采用TFR修复(n = 10)。然后使用万能试验机测量修复牙断裂所需的力,并分析断裂模式(内聚、粘接或混合)。结果:TFR和DCR修复体在任何修复体形状下的总csa和牙釉质csa均无统计学差异(p > 0.067)。与TFR修复的相应形状相比,DCT修复牙的角度和横向断裂所需的断裂力要大得多(p)。结论:本研究表明,DCT修复牙的断裂所需的力要大于TFR修复牙的断裂,尤其是在横截面上。这表明,与重新连接骨折碎片相比,修复骨折牙齿提供了更好的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信