Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials

Fouad Salama,1 Faika Abdelmegid,2 Mohammed Alhussain,3 Hasan Muaddi,3 Nassr AlMaflehi,4 Latifa Alhowaish1 1Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry,...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Salama F, Abdelmegid F, Alhussain M, Muaddi H, AlMaflehi N, Alhowaish L
Formato: article
Lenguaje:EN
Publicado: Dove Medical Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://doaj.org/article/bc946bd87e754973945db52e8db63a7d
Etiquetas: Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
id oai:doaj.org-article:bc946bd87e754973945db52e8db63a7d
record_format dspace
spelling oai:doaj.org-article:bc946bd87e754973945db52e8db63a7d2021-12-02T19:17:36ZComparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials1179-1357https://doaj.org/article/bc946bd87e754973945db52e8db63a7d2021-12-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.dovepress.com/comparison-of-fracture-resistance-of-primary-incisors-restored-with-di-peer-reviewed-fulltext-article-CCIDEhttps://doaj.org/toc/1179-1357Fouad Salama,1 Faika Abdelmegid,2 Mohammed Alhussain,3 Hasan Muaddi,3 Nassr AlMaflehi,4 Latifa Alhowaish1 1Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 3College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Latifa Alhowaish Email lalhowaish@ksu.edu.saAim: To evaluate the effects of placing short posts made of different restorative materials on the fracture resistance of root canals in primary incisors of primary teeth.Materials and Methods: The root canals of 40 extracted primary incisors were prepared and filled with Vitapex and randomly divided into five groups of 8 each. In Groups 1– 4, a post space was created and filled with different restorative materials (Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill, AeliteFlo, Filtek Z250 XT, and GC Fuji II LC® capsule), while Group 5 was kept filled with Vitapex as a control. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine at a 0.5-mm/min crosshead speed. The results were statistically analyzed and compared.Results: The highest fracture resistance was recorded for GC Fuji II LC capsules [439.82 N] and control [423.37 N], while the lowest fracture resistance was recorded for Tetric® N Ceram Bulk Fill (239.91 N). A multiple comparison test showed that the Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill had a significantly lower average value than AeliteFlo (P = 0.030), as well as a significantly lower average value than GC Fuji II LC® capsule (P = 0.001), and a significantly lower average value than the control group (P = 0.002). Multiple comparison tests showed no significant difference between Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill and Filtek Z250 XT (P = 0.39).Conclusion: The fracture resistance of primary incisor root canals differs according to the material used for the intracanal posts. Three-millimeter intracanal posts in the primary incisors showed the highest fracture resistance for the teeth restored with GC Fuji II LC capsules and the control.Keywords: fracture resistance, intracanal posts, primary incisors, resin compositeSalama FAbdelmegid FAlhussain MMuaddi HAlMaflehi NAlhowaish LDove Medical Pressarticlefracture resistanceintracanal postsprimary incisorsresin compositeDentistryRK1-715ENClinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry, Vol Volume 13, Pp 507-512 (2021)
institution DOAJ
collection DOAJ
language EN
topic fracture resistance
intracanal posts
primary incisors
resin composite
Dentistry
RK1-715
spellingShingle fracture resistance
intracanal posts
primary incisors
resin composite
Dentistry
RK1-715
Salama F
Abdelmegid F
Alhussain M
Muaddi H
AlMaflehi N
Alhowaish L
Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
description Fouad Salama,1 Faika Abdelmegid,2 Mohammed Alhussain,3 Hasan Muaddi,3 Nassr AlMaflehi,4 Latifa Alhowaish1 1Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia; 2Department of Oral Medicine and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 3College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia; 4Department of Periodontics and Community Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi ArabiaCorrespondence: Latifa Alhowaish Email lalhowaish@ksu.edu.saAim: To evaluate the effects of placing short posts made of different restorative materials on the fracture resistance of root canals in primary incisors of primary teeth.Materials and Methods: The root canals of 40 extracted primary incisors were prepared and filled with Vitapex and randomly divided into five groups of 8 each. In Groups 1– 4, a post space was created and filled with different restorative materials (Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill, AeliteFlo, Filtek Z250 XT, and GC Fuji II LC® capsule), while Group 5 was kept filled with Vitapex as a control. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine at a 0.5-mm/min crosshead speed. The results were statistically analyzed and compared.Results: The highest fracture resistance was recorded for GC Fuji II LC capsules [439.82 N] and control [423.37 N], while the lowest fracture resistance was recorded for Tetric® N Ceram Bulk Fill (239.91 N). A multiple comparison test showed that the Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill had a significantly lower average value than AeliteFlo (P = 0.030), as well as a significantly lower average value than GC Fuji II LC® capsule (P = 0.001), and a significantly lower average value than the control group (P = 0.002). Multiple comparison tests showed no significant difference between Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill and Filtek Z250 XT (P = 0.39).Conclusion: The fracture resistance of primary incisor root canals differs according to the material used for the intracanal posts. Three-millimeter intracanal posts in the primary incisors showed the highest fracture resistance for the teeth restored with GC Fuji II LC capsules and the control.Keywords: fracture resistance, intracanal posts, primary incisors, resin composite
format article
author Salama F
Abdelmegid F
Alhussain M
Muaddi H
AlMaflehi N
Alhowaish L
author_facet Salama F
Abdelmegid F
Alhussain M
Muaddi H
AlMaflehi N
Alhowaish L
author_sort Salama F
title Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
title_short Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
title_full Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
title_fullStr Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials
title_sort comparison of fracture resistance of primary incisors restored with different intracanal-reinforcement materials
publisher Dove Medical Press
publishDate 2021
url https://doaj.org/article/bc946bd87e754973945db52e8db63a7d
work_keys_str_mv AT salamaf comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
AT abdelmegidf comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
AT alhussainm comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
AT muaddih comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
AT almaflehin comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
AT alhowaishl comparisonoffractureresistanceofprimaryincisorsrestoredwithdifferentintracanalreinforcementmaterials
_version_ 1718376875247534080