Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Different Reattachment Techniues and Adhesive Materials on Incisal Tooth Fragment Reattachment

Anshuka A. Agrawal, Saloni Agrawal, Devender Kumar Sharma, M. Bansal, Vipul Choudhary, K. Moolchandani
{"title":"Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Different Reattachment Techniues and Adhesive Materials on Incisal Tooth Fragment Reattachment","authors":"Anshuka A. Agrawal, Saloni Agrawal, Devender Kumar Sharma, M. Bansal, Vipul Choudhary, K. Moolchandani","doi":"10.9790/0853-160603133138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This is an in vitro study to compare fracture resistance of different reattachment techniques and adhesive materials on incisal tooth fragment reattachment. Methodology: 100 sound human maxillary central incisors were selected .10 were maintained as a control group. Remaining 90 were divided randomly into 3 groups (n=30) based upon the materials used for reattachment and further divided into 3 subgroups (n=10) on the basis of different reattachment techniques. The materials used are dual cure resin cement, flowable composite, nano hybrid composite and three different reattachment techniques used were simple reattachment , overcontour and internal dentinal groove. Data was analyzed with ANOVA (One-Way) test and Post-Hoc Bonferroni test. Results: The control group had a significantly higher fracture resistance (p= 0.001); the highest fracture resistance values were obtained by Dual cure resin cement followed by Nano hybrid composite and minimum in Flowable composite .When compared between three different reattachment techniques internal dentinal groove showed the maximum fracture resistance followed by over contour technique and minimum showed the simple reattachment technique. Conclusion: Although, none of the tested materials provided fracture resistance similar to that found with the intact maxillary central incisors, utilizing the dual cure resin cement improved the fracture resistance of the reattached fragment than other materials.","PeriodicalId":14489,"journal":{"name":"IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9790/0853-160603133138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Purpose: This is an in vitro study to compare fracture resistance of different reattachment techniques and adhesive materials on incisal tooth fragment reattachment. Methodology: 100 sound human maxillary central incisors were selected .10 were maintained as a control group. Remaining 90 were divided randomly into 3 groups (n=30) based upon the materials used for reattachment and further divided into 3 subgroups (n=10) on the basis of different reattachment techniques. The materials used are dual cure resin cement, flowable composite, nano hybrid composite and three different reattachment techniques used were simple reattachment , overcontour and internal dentinal groove. Data was analyzed with ANOVA (One-Way) test and Post-Hoc Bonferroni test. Results: The control group had a significantly higher fracture resistance (p= 0.001); the highest fracture resistance values were obtained by Dual cure resin cement followed by Nano hybrid composite and minimum in Flowable composite .When compared between three different reattachment techniques internal dentinal groove showed the maximum fracture resistance followed by over contour technique and minimum showed the simple reattachment technique. Conclusion: Although, none of the tested materials provided fracture resistance similar to that found with the intact maxillary central incisors, utilizing the dual cure resin cement improved the fracture resistance of the reattached fragment than other materials.
不同再附着技术及黏附材料在切牙碎片再附着中的抗折性比较
目的:比较不同的牙块再附着技术和黏附材料对切牙碎片再附着的抗骨折性。方法:选择100例健全人上颌中切牙,保留10例作为对照组。其余90例按再附着材料随机分为3组(n=30),按再附着方式随机分为3个亚组(n=10)。使用的材料有双固化树脂水泥、可流动复合材料、纳米混合复合材料和三种不同的修复技术:简单修复、过轮廓修复和牙本质内槽修复。数据分析采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)检验和事后Bonferroni检验。结果:对照组患者抗骨折能力显著高于对照组(p= 0.001);双固化树脂水泥的断裂阻力最大,其次是纳米复合材料,流动复合材料的断裂阻力最小。三种不同的牙本质槽再植方式的断裂阻力最大,其次是超轮廓再植方式,简单再植方式的断裂阻力最小。结论:虽然所有材料的抗骨折性都不如上颌中切牙完整时,但使用双固化树脂骨水泥比其他材料更能提高再附着碎片的抗骨折性。
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
×
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