We have located links that may give you full text access.
The effect of marginal ridge thickness on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated, composite restored maxillary premolars.
Operative Dentistry 2007 May
This study evaluated the effect of varying thicknesses of marginal ridge on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars restored with composite. Ninety non-carious maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were selected for this experimental in vitro study. The teeth were randomly assigned to six groups (n=15). Group 1 received no preparation. In groups 2 through 6, the premolars were root filled and DO preparations were created, while MOD preparations were also created for group 2. The condition of the boxes was: the gingival seat was 1.5 mm above the CEJ and the buccolingual dimensions were 3.5 mm in gingival and 3 mm in occlusal. In groups 3 through 6, the dimensions of the mesial marginal ridge were measured using a digital caliper as follows: 2 mm, 1.5 mm, 1 mm and 0.5 mm, respectively. All samples in groups 2 through 6 were restored with a dentin bonding system (DBS: Single Bond, 3M) and resin composite (Z 250, 3M). Subsequently, premolars from all six groups were subjected to a thermocycling regimen of 500 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55oC water baths. Dwell time was 30 seconds, with a 10-second transfer time between baths. The premolars were submitted to axial compression up to failure at a 45 degrees angle to the palatal cusp in Universal Test Equipment (Tinius Olsen, Ltd, H5K-S model). The mean load necessary to fracture the samples was recorded in newtons (N), and data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA) and LSD post-hoc test. According to these results, the mean loads necessary to fracture the samples in each group were (in N): group 1: 732 +/- 239, group 2:489 +/- 149, group 3: 723 +/- 147, group 4: 696 +/- 118, group 5: 654 +/- 183 and group 6: 506 +/- 192). Differences between group 1 and groups 2 and 6, and also differences between groups 3, 4 and 5 compared with group 2 and 6 were statistically significant (p < 0.05).
Full text links
Related Resources
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app