Impact Of Restorative Material On Fracture Strength Of Root Canal Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study.

BACKGROUND: There are several materials available in the market for the core buildup of endodontically treated teeth. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite resin, amalgam and glass ionomer cement as core buildup materials. METHODS: Forty-eight sound-extracted mandibular premolar teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups of 12 teeth each. The first group served as a control and consisted of intact sound teeth. In all of the remaining teeth, root canal treatment was performed first. In Group II composite resin was used as the core build-up material Group III amalgam and Group IV GIC. Teeth were then subjected to fracture using a universal testing machine. RESULTS: One Way ANOVA test was performed to study the differences in the data of the four groups. The mean forces required for fracture were 1050 N for control teeth, 738 N for composite, 872 N for amalgam and 567 N for GIC. The variation is of statistical significance as depicted by a p-value of 0.003. CONCLUSIONS: The highest strength was shown by intact sound teeth. Teeth restored with composite resin and amalgam had similar strengths and those with GIC had significantly lower resistance to fracture.

Success rate of resin bonded restorative dentistry bridges.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the success rate of resin bonded bridges. DESIGN: A descriptive cross-sectional study. PLACE AND DURATION OF STUDY: Fatima Jinnah Dental College Hospital, Karachi between August 1998 and August 2002. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Seventy resin bonded bridges fitted in 60 patients were clinically assessed for debonding. The inclusion criteria included minimal reduction of teeth with minimal occlusal contacts. Patients were excluded if teeth had a large discrepancy of space and heavy occlusion. The retainers were designed self retentive and covered the maximum tooth surface lingually and proximally. Impressions were taken and resin bonded bridges were fabricated and bonded. Information regarding the patient's data, bonding and debonding was collected on a proforma and was analysed using SPSS version 10.0. RESULTS: Seventy resin-bonded bridges had been in place for an average of 33 months. The results showed a 94.3% success rate. Statistically significant results were found between anterior bridges and posterior bridges for bonding status (p< 0.05). Results were not significant where maxillary versus mandibular bridges were compared for bonding status. (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Resin bonded bridges achieved a high level of clinical success in the study.