Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

FARKLI RESTORASYON MATERYALLERİ İLE RESTORE EDİLMİŞ ENDODONTİK TEDAVÎLİ DİŞLERİN KIRILMA DİRENÇLERİNİN İN VİTRO İNCELENMESİ

IN VITRO FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF ENDODONTICALLY TREATED TEETII RESTORED WITH DIFFERENT RESTORATION MATERIALS

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2004

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this study was to evaluate ttie fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different materials. Seventy sound extracted human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into 2 control groups; of 5 teeth each and 4 experimental groups of 15 teeth each. Group-1 did not receive any preparation. In other groups, the teeth received root canal treatment and MOD cavity preparation. Group-2 was kept unrestorcd. Uroup-3 was restored with amalgam. In Groups1, Prime&Bond-NT and compomer were used for restoring teeth. The teeth in the last two groups were treated with SE-Bond- The teeth in Grour>5 were restored with composite resin suitable for anterior teeth. In Group-6, the teeth were restored with posterior composite resin. After finishing and polishing, the specimens were stored in I0U9fc humidity at 37"C for I day. The teeth were mounted in a universal testing machine and occlusal surfaces were subjected to compressive farces until failure. The mean load necessary to fracture the samples were recorded in Newton and were submitted to ANOVA one way analysis and Tukey Posl-IIoc test. The teeth in composite groups were found to be the most resistant group to compressive forces (p<0.05) and compomer group was found to be more resistant to fracture than amalgam group (p^O.O.1)), Use of composite restoration in endodontically treated teeth with MOD cavily significantly increased fracture strength.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı farklı materyallerle restore edilen endodontik olarak tedavi edilmiş maksiller premolar dişlerin kırılmaya karşı dayanımlarını değerlendirmektir. Yelmis adet çekilmiş sağlam insan maksiller premolar diş raslgele herbiri 5 dikten oluşan 2 konLrol grubuna ve herbiri 15' er dişten oluşan 4 deneysel gruba ayrıldı. Grup-!' de herhangi bir preparasyon yapılmadı. Diğer gruplarda dişlere kök kanal tedavisi ve MOD kavile preparasyonu yapıldı. (rrup-2 restorasyonsuz olarak bırakıldı. Grup-3 amai^amla restore edildi. Grup-4' dc, dişlerin restorasyonu için Prime&Bond NT ve kompumer kullanıldı. Son iki gruptaki kaviteler SB-Bond ile hazırlandı. Grııp-5' teki dişler anterior bölge için ha/.ırlanmış kompozit reziıılc, Grup-6' daki dişler posterior bölge için hazırlanmış kompozit rczinlc restore edildi. Restorasyonların bitirilme ve parlatma işlemlerinden nonra, örnekler %100 nemli ortamda ve 37 °C de 1 gün bekletildi. Dişler universal bir test cîha/ına bağlandı ve okluy.al yüzeyleri kırılma görülene kadar sıkıştırma kuvvetlerine manız bırakıldı. Örneklerin kırılması için gerekli olan ortalama değerler Newton olîirak kaydedildi ve tek yönlü varyans vc Tukey testlerine tabi tutuldu. Kompozit gruplarındaki dişler sıkıştırma kuvvetlerine karşı en dayanıklı grubu oluşturdu (p<0.05) ve kompomer grubu kırılmaya karşı amalgam grubundan daha dayanıklı bulundu (p<0.05). MOD kaviteli endodontik olarak tedavi edilen dişlerde kompozit restorasyonların kullanılması kırılma da yanımını önemli derecede artırdı.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-farkli-restorasyon-materyalleri-ile-restore-edilmis-endodontik-tedavili-dislerin-kirilma-direnclerinin-vitro-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 3
41-49
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1.
Alaça
m T. Endodontı. II. Baskı, Fakülteler Kitabcvi Banj Yayınları, Ankara, 2000; 629-652.
ERDHMTR, IJNVERDİ Kİ .DENİZ HHLLİ
2.
Bell
i S, Tanrı verdi FF, Karakaya Ş. Üç farklı restorasyon uygulanmış kanal tedavili molar dişlerin karılma dayanımlarının incelenmesi. Dişhek Der. 1998; 28: '90-3.
3= Reeh ES, Douglass WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontıcally-trealed teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989:68: 1540-4.
4. Assif D> Gorfıl C Biomechanical considerations in restoring cndodonticatly treated teeth. .1 Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 565-567.
5. Heifer AR, Conn S, Zelnick S, Conn .H, Schilder H, Mass B. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg 1972; 34: 661 670.
6. Jameson MW, HoodJAA, Tidmnrsh BQ. The effects of dehydration and rehydration on some mechanical properties of human dentin. J Biomech 1993; 26: 1055-1065.
7. Wagnild GW, Mueller KI. Restoration of the endodontically treated teeth. Pathways of the Pulp 8th ed. Mosby Inc. St 1 ^uis, USA, 2002: 765-795.
8. Gutmann JL The dentin-root complex: Anatomic and biologic coniderations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. .1 Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 458-467.
9. I'otashnick SR, Weine FS, Strauss S. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Endodontic Therapy 4th ed. Mosby Inc, St i»uis, USA, 1989; 653-698.
10. Eakle WS. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J Dent Res 1986; 65: 149-153.
47
Atatürk Univ.Diş
Hek.Fak.Dcrg
. Cilt: 14. Ssıyj 3. Sayfa:4l-49, 2004
ERDEMİR, UN VERDİ HLDFNİZ BHLLİ
11. Jagadish S, YogesK BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite and glass cermet restorations. Opcr Dent 1990; 15: 42-47.
12. Oliveira PC, Denehy GE, Boycr DB, Fracture resistance of endodontically prepared teeth using various restorative materials. JADA 1987; 115: 57-60.
13.
Alaça
m I, Nalbant L. Alaçam A. Endodontik Tedavi Sonrası Restorasyon (Postcndodontik Rehabilitasyon), İleri Restorasyon Teknikleri, Pol al Yayınlan, Ankara. 1998: 47-136.
14. Khcra SC, Carpenter CW, Vcttcr JD, Staley RN, Anatomy of cusps of posterior teeth' and their fracture potential- J Prnsthei Dent 1990; 64: 139-147.
15. Hansen EK, Asinusscn K, Christiansen NC. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990 ; 6: 49-55.
16. Larson TD, Douglas WH, Geistfeld RE. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 1981; 6: 2-5.
17. Linn J, Messer HH, Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endodon 1994, 20: 479-485.
18. Mondelli J, Iskirıama A, Pcrcira JC, Franciscbnne CH, Navarro MFL, Junior Jü, Corda/zi JL. Cross-splinting a weakened tooth with a horizontal pin: A new method. J Prosthct Dent 57: 442-445.
19. El-Sherif MH, Haihotıl MN, Kamar AA, Nour el-Din A. Fracture strength of premolars with class 2 silver amalgam restorations. Opcr Dent 1988; 13: 50-53,
20. Marshall Jr GW. Dentin: Micrustructure and characterization. Quint In t 1993; 224: 606-617.
2J. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int. Endod J 1994;27:281-284.
22. Hurmiizlu F, Serper A, Si so SH, Hr K. In vitro fracture resistance of root-filled teeth using new-generation dentine bonding adhesives. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 770-773.
23. Assıf D, Marshak BL. Pilo R. Cuspal flexure associated with amalgam restorations. J Prosthct Dent 1990:63:258-262.
24. Abate PF, Bertacchini SM, Polack MA et al. Adhesion of a compomer to dental structures. Qu intense nee Int 1997; 28: 509-512.
25. Schneider BT, Benmarin MA, Watanabc LG, Marshall GW Jr. Dentin shear bond strength of compomers and composites. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 15-19.
26. hrdemir
A
, Eldeniz. AÜ, Ari H, Belli S. Üç farklı rcstoralif materyalin çürükten etkilenmiş ve sağlam dentindeki shear bağlanma dayanımları. Akademik Dental Dişhck Derg 2004; 6(2): 1-5.
27. Yap ALT, Chung SM, Chow WS, Tsai Kİ', Lîm Cl*. Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives. Oper Dent 2004; 29İ !):29-34.
28. Craig RG. Restorative Dental Materials. 8th ed. St. l-otiis. Mosby Comp 1989: 255.
4S
Atatürk Ünıv.Dis Hek.Fak.Derg. Cilt: 14, Sayı 3, Sayfa:41-49,2004
29. Phillips RW, Avery DR, Mehra RJ, Swartz ML, Mc Cime RJ. Observations on a composite resin for class IJ restorations: three year report.. J Prosthel Dent 1973; 30: 891-897.
30. [.einfelder KF, Sluder TB, Santos JF, Wall JT. Five year clinical evaluation of anterior and posterior restorations of composite resin. Opcr !>enl 1980; 5: 57-65.
31. Causton BE, Miller B, Seflon S. The deformation of cusps by bonded posterior composite restorations: an in vitro study. Br Dent J 1985; 159: 397-400.
32. Shclh JJ, Fuller JL, Jensen ME. Cuspal deformation and fracture resistance of teeth with dentin adhesives and composites, J Rrosthet Dent 1988; 60: 560-569.
33. Chan KJ, Swift FJ Jr. Marginal seal of new-generation dental bonding agents. J Prostfsct Dent 1994;77:420-423.
ERDBMİR, ÜNVERDİ ELDENİZ BELLI
34. Trope M, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with glass ionomer cementor acid etch composite resin. J Endodon 1991; 17:257-259.
35. Ausiello P, Dc Gcc AJ, Rengo S, Davidson CL. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J [Jent 1997; 10: 237.

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