Influence of different tooth preparation and bonding techniques on the fracture resistance of tooth fragment reattachment.

Biomaterial investigations in dentistry Pub Date : 2021-07-20 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1080/26415275.2021.1952873
Shaymaa M Nagi, Sherif M Khadr
{"title":"Influence of different tooth preparation and bonding techniques on the fracture resistance of tooth fragment reattachment.","authors":"Shaymaa M Nagi,&nbsp;Sherif M Khadr","doi":"10.1080/26415275.2021.1952873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>comparing the influence of different tooth preparation and bonding techniques on the fracture resistance of tooth fragment reattachment.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>Ninety bovine central incisors were selected. Fifteen teeth act as a control (Group A). Experimental specimens were sectioned at the mesial-incisal proximal edge 3 mm from the incisal edge in a labio-lingual direction at 25degree inclination apically. Experimental specimens were then divided into five groups according to the tooth reattachment techniques utilized; Group B: no tooth preparation + Cured bond + Flowable composite; Group C: no tooth preparation + Uncured bond + Flowable composite; Group D: Bevel + bond + Flowable composite; Group E: Over-contouring + bond + Nanohybrid composite; Group F: Over-contouring + bond + Flowable composite. Specimens were subjected to thermocycling between 5 °C and 55 °C for 500 cycles with 30 sec. dwell time. Fracture strength was evaluated using universal testing machine. Data was analyzed using One-way ANOVA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was a statistically significant difference between Group A and all the experimental groups, <i>p</i> < .001. Group E showed the highest statistically significant fracture resistance mean value compared to other experimental groups, while the lowest mean value was found in Group B.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Though, none of the tested techniques resulted in fracture resistance similar to that of intact teeth, over-contouring technique with nanohybrid composite application showed better performances compared to the other techniques tested in the current study. Bonding plus flowable resin composite application with no additional tooth preparation and placement of a bevel are not suggested due to the low fracture strength achieved.</p>","PeriodicalId":72378,"journal":{"name":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/26415275.2021.1952873","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Biomaterial investigations in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1952873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Purpose: comparing the influence of different tooth preparation and bonding techniques on the fracture resistance of tooth fragment reattachment.

Materials and method: Ninety bovine central incisors were selected. Fifteen teeth act as a control (Group A). Experimental specimens were sectioned at the mesial-incisal proximal edge 3 mm from the incisal edge in a labio-lingual direction at 25degree inclination apically. Experimental specimens were then divided into five groups according to the tooth reattachment techniques utilized; Group B: no tooth preparation + Cured bond + Flowable composite; Group C: no tooth preparation + Uncured bond + Flowable composite; Group D: Bevel + bond + Flowable composite; Group E: Over-contouring + bond + Nanohybrid composite; Group F: Over-contouring + bond + Flowable composite. Specimens were subjected to thermocycling between 5 °C and 55 °C for 500 cycles with 30 sec. dwell time. Fracture strength was evaluated using universal testing machine. Data was analyzed using One-way ANOVA.

Results: There was a statistically significant difference between Group A and all the experimental groups, p < .001. Group E showed the highest statistically significant fracture resistance mean value compared to other experimental groups, while the lowest mean value was found in Group B.

Conclusion: Though, none of the tested techniques resulted in fracture resistance similar to that of intact teeth, over-contouring technique with nanohybrid composite application showed better performances compared to the other techniques tested in the current study. Bonding plus flowable resin composite application with no additional tooth preparation and placement of a bevel are not suggested due to the low fracture strength achieved.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

不同牙体制备及粘接技术对牙片再附着体抗断裂性能的影响。
目的:比较不同牙体制备及粘接技术对牙片再附着体抗断裂性能的影响。材料和方法:选择90只牛中切牙。15颗牙作为对照组(a组)。实验标本在离切牙边缘3mm的中切牙近端沿唇舌方向切牙,牙尖倾斜25度。实验标本根据所采用的牙齿再植技术分为五组;B组:无牙预备+固化粘结+可流动复合材料;C组:无牙预备+未固化粘结+可流动复合材料;D组:斜面+粘结+可流动复合材料;E组:超轮廓+键合+纳米杂化复合材料;F组:超轮廓+粘结+可流动复合材料。样品在5°C和55°C之间进行热循环,循环500次,30秒。住时间。断裂强度采用万能试验机进行评定。数据分析采用单因素方差分析。结果:a组与各试验组之间的差异有统计学意义。p结论:虽然所测试的技术都没有达到与完整牙齿相似的抗折断性,但与本研究中测试的其他技术相比,纳米复合材料应用的过轮廓技术表现出更好的性能。由于断裂强度较低,不建议在没有额外牙齿准备和放置斜面的情况下使用粘接和可流动树脂复合材料。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
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