Shiran Aharonian, Andrea Dora Schachter, Mahmoud Masri, Tanya Sella Tunis, Sigalit Blumer, Tamar Brosh, Tal Ratson
{"title":"牙片再植与直接复合修复法修复牛门牙的抗骨折性比较。","authors":"Shiran Aharonian, Andrea Dora Schachter, Mahmoud Masri, Tanya Sella Tunis, Sigalit Blumer, Tamar Brosh, 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> > .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> < .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":"{\"title\":\"Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques\",\"authors\":\"Shiran Aharonian, Andrea Dora Schachter, Mahmoud Masri, Tanya Sella Tunis, Sigalit Blumer, Tamar Brosh, 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> > .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> < .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}","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}
Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques
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.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
