Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Type:||Artigo de periódico|
|Title:||Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: Fracture resistance and fracture mode|
|Abstract:||Statement of problem. Unresolved controversy exists concerning the preferred cavity design and restorative technique used to restore endodontically treated maxillary premolars to improve their resistance to fracture under occlusal load. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance, stress distribution, and cusp deformation of endodontically treated human maxillary premolars restored with different materials. The study is divided into 2 parts. In Part I, fracture resistance and fracture mode were determined. Material and methods. Seventy noncarious human maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 7 groups (n = 10). The control group, ST, consisted of sound unprepared teeth. Teeth in the other 6 groups were endodontically treated and each received 1 of 2 cavity preparation designs: MODd, direct mesio-occlusal-distal preparation; MODi, indirect mesio-occlusal-distal preparation. Teeth were restored with 4 types of material: AM, MODd restored with amalgam; CR, MODd restored with composite resin; LPR, MODi restored with laboratory-processed composite resin; and LGC, MODi restored with leucite-reinforced glass ceramic. The fracture resistance (N) was assessed under compressive load in a universal testing machine. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha = .05). Fracture modes were recorded based on the degree of tooth structure involvement and restoration damage. Results. Statistical analysis showed that the ST group presented the highest fracture resistance values. The restored groups showed significantly higher fracture resistance values compared to the nonrestored groups. The groups restored with adhesive techniques (LPR, CR, and LGC) presented significantly higher fracture resistance values than the group restored with the nonadhesive technique (AM) (P<.001). The catastrophic fractures were prevalent in MODd, MODi, AM, and LPR groups, and less severe fractures were found in ST and LGC groups. For the CR group, there was no prevalent fracture mode. Conclusions. Teeth with the greatest amount of remaining tooth structure and those restored using adhesive technology showed higher fracture resistance values. There was great variation In the type of fracture among groups.|
|Citation:||Journal Of Prosthetic Dentistry. Mosby-elsevier, v. 99, n. 1, n. 30, n. 37, 2008.|
|Appears in Collections:||Unicamp - Artigos e Outros Documentos|
Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.