Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

FARKLI TİPTEKİ II. SINIF KAVİTE DİZAYNI KULLANILAN DİŞLERİN KIRILMA DİRENÇLERİNİN DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

EVALUATION OF THE FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF TEETH USED DIFFERENT CLASS II CAVITY DESIGN

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2007

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of posterior restorative materials applied to class II cavities prepared by different methods. Forty freshly extracted caries free human maxi/aary premoaar teeth were used nn this study. The teeth were randomty divided into 4 groups of each including 10 premolars. Group 1 was served as control and any treatment procedure was applied. The teeth in groups 2, 3 and 4 were respectively prepared as classical class II cavity, modified class II cavity and tunnel cavity. After completion of prepared cavities, the teeth were restored using a posterior composite resin (Dentsply, Kontstanz, Germany). All teeth were placed an Instron testing machine and the compressive force was apptted at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/mnn until the fracture was occurred. The forces requrred to fracture the specimens were recorded as Newton. The obtained data was statistically evaluated by using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests. The mean load necessary to fracture the samples nn each group was (nn N): Group 1: 828.23±118.21, Group 2: 779.32±139.99, Group 3: 799.82±117.26, Group 4: 805.39±108.68. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups (p> 0.05). In the conclusion, it was found that use of different cavity design in restoration of the teeth was not affected the fracture resistance of the teeth.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı; farklı yöntemlerle hazrraanan II. sınıf kavttelere uygulanan posterior restoratif materyallerin kırı/ma dayanıklılıklarının değerlendirilmesidir. Bu çalışmada 40 adet çürüksüz yeni çekilmşş insan premolar dişi kullanıldı. Diş/er her brr grupta 10 adet diş olacak şekilde rastgele dört gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1 kontrol grubu oaarak ayrldı ve herhangi brr iş/em uygu/anmadı. Grup 2, 3 ve 4 teki diş/erde sırasıyla klasik sınıflI kavtte, modifiye sınıflI kavtte ve tünel kavtteler hazırlandı. Kavtte preparasyon/arı hazır/andıktan sonra dişler posterior kompozit (Dentsp/y, Kontstanz, Germany) ile restore edildi. Örnekler Instron test cihazına bağlandı ve okluzal yüzeyleri kırılma görülene kadar lmm/dk hzaa sıkıştrrma kuvvetlerine maruz bırakıldı. Örneklerin kırı/ması için gerekti o/an sıkıştırma kuvvetleri Newton olarak kaydedildi. Elde edilen veriler tek yönlü varyans anatizi ve Tukey testleri kulan/arak istatistkksel oaarak anatz edildi. Her gruptaki örnek/erin kırılması için gerekli orta/ama kuvvetler şu şekilde belir/endi. Grup 1: 828.23±118.21, Grup 2: 779.32±139.99, Grup 3: 799.82±117.26, Grup 4: 805.39±108.68. Grupaar arasında istatistkksel oaarak önemli bir farklılık bulunamadı (p> 0.05). Sonuç oaarak dişlerin restorasyonunda fark/ı kavtte dizaynlarının kullanılmasının diş/erin kırı/ma dayanımında etkili olmadığı bulundu.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-farkli-tipteki-ii.sinif-kavite-dizayni-kullanilan-dislerin-kirilma-direnclerinin-degerlendirilmesi.pdf
  • 2
1-6
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1- Kitty MY, Stephen HY. Ctınical evaluation of
compomer nn primary teeth: 1-year results. JADA 1997; 128:1088-96.
2- Irte M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Marginal and flexural integrity of three classes of luting cement, with early finishing and water storage. Dent Mater 2004;20:3-11.
3- Fonseca RB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Fernandes-Neto AJ,
Quagtaatto PS, Soares CJ. The influence of the cavity preparation design on marginal accuracy of laboratory-processed resin composite restorations. Clin OralInvesttg. 2007, Basımda
4- Kah/er B, Kotousov A, Borkowsk K. On fracture resistance of restored teeth. Key Engineering Materials Vol 2005;245-51.
5-
Yılmaz EÖ, Ulusoy N. Farkı yöntemlerle hazırlanan sınıf 2 kavttelerde estetik restorasyonların mikrosızıntısının değerlendirilmesi. A.ÜÜ. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2005;32;171-80.
6-
Nalçacı A, Ulusoy N. Farklı po/imerizasyon zaman/arının kondanse ed/lebi/rr kompozit reznn/erin yüzey serttiği üzerine etkileri. A.ÜÜ. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg. 2005;32; 79-84,
7- Manhart W, Chen HY, Hickel R. The suttabee of packable resnn-based composites for posterior restorations. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;132: 639-45.
8- Attun C, Kabaaay U, Güven G, Başak F, Akbulut E, pedaatrkk diş hekimliğinde foto-aktvaasyon yöntemlerinin restoratif materyalin pottmertzasyon büzü/mest üzerine etkileri. Gühane Tıp Derg 2005; 47:127-31.
9- Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J1991;41:25-32.
10- Ritter AV. Posterior resin-based composite restorations: citnicat recommendations for optimal success. J Esthet Restor Dent 2001; 13:88-99.
11- Cho L, Song H, Koak J, Heo S. Margnnal accuracy and fracture strength of ceromer/ftber-rennforced composite crowns: effect of variations in preparation design. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:388-95.
12- Thordrup M, Istdor F, Horsted-Binds/ev P. Comparison of marginal fit and micro/eakage of ceramic and composite inlays: an nn vitro study. J Dent 1994;22:147-53.
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
Cilt:17, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2007, Sayfa: 1-6
13- Koran P, Kürschner R. Effect of sequential versus continuous rrradtatton of a tight-cured resin composite on shrinkage, viscosity, adhesion, and degree of polymerization. Am J Dent 1998;10:17¬22.
14- Pyk N, Mejare I, Tunnel restorations nn general practice. Influence of some cinnical variables on the success rate, Acta Odontol Scand 1999;57: 195¬200.
15-A/mqustt TC, Cowan RD, Lambert RL. Conservative amalgam restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1973;29:524-8.
16- Nordbo H, Lerrskar J, van der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparations for posterior approxtmal resin composite restorations: Observations up to 10 years. Quintessence Int 1998;29:5-11.
17- E/iis SG, McCord JF, Burke FJ. Predisposing and contributing factor for complete and incomplete tooth fractures. Dent Update 1999;26:150-2
18- Monde/it J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparattons.J Prosthet Dent 1980;43: 419-22.
19- Houpt M, Fuks A, Eidelman E. Direct bonded Class I restorations and sealants: Six options Quintessence Int 1994;25:155-9
20- Nordbo H, Lerrskar J, von der Fehr FR. Saucer-shaped cavity preparation for composite resin restorations in class II carious lesions: three-year resutts.1: J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:155-9.
21- Jinks GM. Fluoride-impregnated cements and their effect on the activity of interproximal cartes. J Dent Child 1963;30:87-92.
22- Tvett AB, Espelid I, Skodje F. Restorative treatment decisions on approxtmal cartes in Norway. Int Dent J 1999;49:165-72.
23- Sundberg H, Mejare I, Espelid I, Tvett AB. Swedish dentists' decisions on preparation techniques and restorative materials. Acta Odontol Scand 2000;58:135-11
24- Wagn/ld GW, Mueller KI. Restoration of the endodonttcally treated teeth. Pathways of the Pulp 8th ed. Mosby Inc. St Louis, USA, 2002: 765-795.
25- Reeh ES, Doug/ass WH, Messer HH. Stfffness of endodonticalty-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989; 68:1540-4.
26- Gutmann JL The dentnn-root complex: Anatomic and biologic coniderations nn restoring endodonttcally treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 458-67.
ERCAN,ERDEMİR, ZORBA, DALLI
27- Potash nick SR, Wenne FS, Strauss S. Restoration of the endodontical/y treated tooth. Endodontic Therapy 4th ed. Mosby Inc, St Louis, USA, 1989: 653-98.
28- Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodonttcally treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J1994; 27:281-4.
29-
Erdemrr A, Edenzz AU, Betti S. Fark/ı restorasyon materyalleri ite restore edilmiş endodontik tedavi/i dişlerin kırı/ma drrenç/erinin in vitro incelenmesi. A. ÜÜ. Diş Hek Fak Derg 2004; 14: 41-9.
30- Lnn CL, Chang CH, Ko CC. Muttffactorial anatyysis of an MOD restored human premoaar using auto-mesh finite element approach. J Oral Rehabit 2001;28:576-85.
31- Svaördström G. Mint preparattoner for dagens kartessttuatton och material utbud. Odonto/ogi 91. Copenhagen: Munksgaard; 1991.p. 67-79
32- Kinomoto Y, Inoue Y, Ebtsu S. A two-year comparison of resin-based composite tunnel and Class II restorations in a randomized controlled trial. Am J Dent. 2004;17:253-6.
33- Horsted-Bindslev P, Heyde-Petersen B, Simonsen P, Bae/um V. Tunnel or saucer-shaped restorations: a survival analysts. Clin Oral Investtg. 2005;9:233-8.
34-
Ercan E, Dü/gerg/i ÇT, Yıldrrım I, Dalı M. Tünel restorasyonların daimi dişlerdeki başarısı: 3 yılık takip çalışması. ADO Klinik B/timleri Derg. Basımda
35- Denehy GE, Torney DL. Internal enamel reinforcement through micromechanicat bonding. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:171-5.
36- Eakle WS, Stannnec M. Effect of bonded gold inlays on fracture resistance of teeth. Quintessence Int 1992;23:421-5.
37- Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15:42-7.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com