JOURNAL ARTICLE

The effect of marginal ridge thickness on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated, composite restored maxillary premolars

Shahrbaf Shahrbaf, Behnam Mirzakouchaki, Siavash Savadi Oskoui, Mehdi Abed Kahnamoui
Operative Dentistry 2007, 32 (3): 285-90
17555181
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

Find Full Text Links for this Article

Discussion

You are not logged in. Sign Up or Log In to join the discussion.

Related Papers

Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
17555181
×

Save your favorite articles in one place with a free QxMD account.

×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"