Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

Hibrid-kompozid ve farklı bonding ajanların kullanıldığı kök kanal tedavili dişlerin, bukkal va palatinal tüberkül kırılma dirençleri

Buccal and palatal cusps fracture resistance of root filled teeth using various dentine bonding agents and hybrid composite resin

Journal Name:

  • Gülhane Tıp Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2010

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author Name
Abstract (2. Language): 
In this study, we aimed to compare the buccal and palatal cusp fracture resistance of endodontically treated primary maxillary premolars with mesial-occlusal-distal cavity which was restored with composite resin by using different types of bonding adhesives. A hundred extracted double rooted human maxillary premolars were randomly separated into five groups in which 20 teeth were included in each group. Group 1 was restorated with total performance hybrid spectrum hybrid composite and Prime&Bond NT, and Group 2 was restorated with total performance hybrid spectrum hybrid composite and Clearfil S-Tri Bond. Group 3 was restorated with total performance hybrid spectrum hybrid composite and Clearfil SE Bond. Group 4 was considered as positive control, and Group 5 was considered as negative control. Also each experimental group was divided into two subgroups of 10 teeth in order to compare the values of buccal and palatal cusp fracture resistance. Group 3, in which Clearfil SE Bond was used showed a higher value of fracture resistance than Group 1, in which Prime&Bond NT was used. When samples were investigated, it was observed that there was no statistically significant difference between buccal and palatal cusps of mesial-occlusal-distal cavities which were restorated with hybrid composite and different bonding adhesives.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmada, farklı tipte bonding ajan kullanarak kompozit rezin ile restore edilen meziyo-oklüzo-distal kaviteli ve endodontik olarak tedavi edilmiş üst birinci küçük azı dişlerinin bukkal ve palatinal tüberkül kırılma dirençlerini karşılaştırılması amaçlanmıştır. Çekilmiş çift köklü 100 adet üst çene küçük azı (maksillar premolar) dişleri her bir grup 20 diş içerecek şekilde rastgele 5 gruba ayrıldı. Grup 1 total performans hibrid spektrum hibrid kompozit ve Prime&Bond NT ile ve Grup 2 total performans hibrid spektrum hibrid kompozit ve Clearfil S-Tri Bond ile restore edildi. Grup 3 total performans hibrid spektrum hibrid kompozit ve Clearfil SE Bond ile restore edildi. Grup 4 pozitif kontrol ve Grup 5 negatif kontrol grupları olarak belirlendi. Ayrıca deney gruplarının her biri kendi içinde bukkal ve palatinal tüberkül kırılma direnç değerlerini karşılaştırmak için 10 adet dişten oluşan alt gruplara ayrıldı. Clearfil SE Bond’un kullanıldığı Grup 3, Prime&Bond NT’nin kullanıldığı Grup 1’den istatistiksel olarak daha yüksek kı- rılma direnci değeri gösterdi. Örnekler değerlendirildiğinde, hibrid kompozit ve farklı bonding ajanlar ile restore edilen meziyo-oklüzo-distal kavitelerin bukkal ve palatinal tüberküllerinde kırılma dirençleri arasındaki farklılığın istatistiksel olarak anlamlı olmadığı görüldü.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-hibrid-kompozid-farkli-bonding-ajanlarin-kullanildigi-kok-kanal-tedavili-dislerin-bukkal-va-palatinal-tuberkul-kirilma-direncleri.pdf
  • 1
1-6
  • English

REFERENCES

References: 

References
1. Wagnild G, Muller K. Restoration of endodontically
treated teeth. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM (eds). Pathways
of the Pulp. 9th ed. St Louis: Mosby Co, 2006: 786-821.
2. Belli S, Erdemir A, Özcopur M, et al. The effect of fibre
insertion on fracture rersistance of root filled molar teeth
with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int
Endod J 2005; 38: 73-80.
3. Eissman HF, Radke RA. Postendodontic restoration. In:
Cohen S, Burns RC (eds). Pathways of the Pulp. St Louis:
Mosby Inc, 1984: 701-749.
4. Jantarat J, Palamara J, Msser H. An investigation of cuspal
deformation and delayed recovery after occlusal loading.
J Dent 2001; 29: 363-370.
5. Doyglas WH, Sakaguchi RL, DeLong R. Frictional effects
between natural teeth in an artificial mouth. Dental
Mater 1985; 1: 115-119.
6. El-Badrawy WA. Cuspal deflection of maxillary premolars
restored with bonded amalgam. Oper Dent 1999; 24:
337-343.
7. Mannocci F, Bertellii E, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Ford TR.
Three-year clinical comparison of survival endodontically
treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or
with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 2002;
88: 297-301.
8. Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of
polyethylene fiber in root filled teeth: comparison of two
restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 136-142.
9. Sabbagh J, Vreven J, Leloup G. Dynamic and static
moduli of elasticity of resin-based materials. Dent Mater
2002; 18: 64-71.
10. Manhart J, Kunzelmann KH, Chen HY, Hickel R.
Mechanical properties and wear behavior of light cured
packable composite resins. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 33-40.
11. Al-Sharaa KA, Watts DC. Stickiness prior to some light
cured resin composites. Dent Mater 2003; 19: 182-187.
12. Trope M, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of
endodontically-treated premolars restored with glass
ionomer cement or acid etch resin composite. J Endod
1991; 17: 257-259.
13. Peumans M, Kanumilli P, De Munck J, Van Landuyt K,
Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Clinical effectiveness of
contemporary adhesives: A systematic review of current
clinical trials. Dental Mater 2005; 21: 864-881.
14. Knobloch LA, Gailey D, Azer S, Johnton WM, Clelland N,
Kerby RE. Bond strengths of one-and two-step self-etch
adhesive systems. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 97: 216-222.
15. De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B. The current status of
bonding to dentinanno. Int J Oral Med Sci 2007; 6:
45-60.
16. Eakle WS, Maxwell EH, Braly BV. Fractures of posterior
teeth in adults. J Am Dent Assoc 1986; 112: 215-218.
17. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective
study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J
Dent 2000; 13: 9B-13B.
18. Ulusoy N, Nayyar A, Morris CF, Fairhurst CW. Fracture
durability of restored functional cusps on maxillary
nonvital premolar teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 66:
330-335.
19. Cavel WT, Kelsey WP, Blankenau RJ. An in vito study of
cuspal fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 38-42.
20. Goel VK, Khera SC, Gurusami S, Chen RSC. Effect of
cavity depth on stresses in a restored tooth. J Prosthet
Dent 1992; 67: 174-183.
21. Trope M, Langer I, Maltz D, Tronstad L. Resistance to
fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars.
Endod Dent Traumatol 1986; 2: 35-38.
22. Grandini S, Goracci C, Tay FR, Grandini R, Ferrari M.
Clinical evaluation of the use of fiber posts and direct
resin restorations for endodontically treated teeth. Int J
Prosthodont 2005; 18: 399-404.
23. Blaser PK, Lund MR, Cochran MA, Potter RH. Effects of
designs of class 2 preparations on resistance of teeth to
fracture. Oper Dent 1983; 8: 6-10.
24. Caron GA, Murchison DF, Cohen RB, Broome JC.
Resistance to fracture of teeth with various preparations
for amalgam. J Dent 1996; 24: 407-410.
25. Hood JA. Biomechanics of the intact, prepared and
restored tooth: some clinical implications. Int Dent J
1991; 41: 25-32.
26. Panitvisia P, Messr HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in
relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J
Endod 1995; 21: 57-61.
27. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL. Effect of adhesive
layer properties on stress distribution in composite
restorations – a 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater
2002; 18: 295-303.
28. Sakaguchi RL, Brust EW, Cross M, DeLong R, Douglas
WH. Independent movement of cusps during occlusal
loading. Dent Mater 1991; 7: 186-190.
29. Maccari PCA, Conceicao EN, Nues MF. Fracture resistance
of endodontically treated teeth restored with three
different prefabricated esthetic posts. J Esthet Restor
Dent 2003; 15: 25-30.
30. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Vallittu PK, Creugers NHJ.
A structured analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure
modes of fiber, metal and ceramic post-and-core systems.
Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17: 476-482.
31. Akkayan B, Gülmez T. Resistance to fracture of crowned
teeth restored with different post systems. Eur J
Prosthodont Restor Dent 1998; 6: 13-18.
32. Espevik S. Stress/strain behavior of dental amalgams.
Acta Odontol Scand 1978; 36: 103-111.
33. Salis SG, Hood JA, Stokes AN, Kirk EE. Patterns of indirect
fracture in intact and restored human premolar teeth.
Endod Dent Traumatol 1987; 3: 10-14.
34. Hernandez R, Bader S, Boston D, Trope M. Resistance
to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored
with new generation bonding systems. Int Endod J 1994;
27: 281-284.
35. Toledano M, Osorio R, De Leonardi G, Rosalles-Leal’JL,
Ceballos L, Cabrerizo-Vilchez MA. Influence of selfetching primer on the resin adhesion to enamel and
dentin. Am J Dent 2001; 14: 205-210.
36. Ibarra G, Vargas MA, Armstrong SR, Cobb DS.
Microtensile bond strength of self-etching adhesives to
ground and unground enamel. Adhesive Dent 2002; 4:
115-124.

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