Fracture resistance of teeth with simulated cervical root resorptions restored by various materials
2021
espanolEl objetivo de este estudio es comparar la resistencia a la fractura de dientes con reabsorciones radiculares cervicales tras la restauracion con composite de resina, ionomero de vidrio modificado con resina (RMGI), Biodentina y agregado de trioxido mineral (MTA). Metodologia: Se dividieron 60 premolares maxilares de una sola raiz extraidos en 4 grupos experimentales (n=10) y 2 de control (n=10). Diez dientes intactos sirvieron de grupo de control negativo. En los dientes restantes, se prepararon cavidades de 2 mm de profundidad, que se extendian 1 mm por encima de la union cemento-esmalte (CEJ) y 2 mm por debajo de ella. Las cavidades permanecieron sin restaurar en los 10 dientes de control positivo. Las cavidades cervicales de los dientes restantes se restauraron con composite de resina Z250, Fuji II LC RMGI, ProRoot MTA y Biodentine. La resistencia a la fractura de los dientes se midio con una maquina de ensayo universal y se registro en newton (N). Los datos se analizaron mediante un ANOVA unidireccional seguido de la prueba de Tukey con un intervalo de confianza del 95%. Resultados y conclusiones: Se observaron diferencias significativas en la resistencia a la fractura de la resina compuesta y la RMGI con el grupo de control positivo (P0,05). Dentro de las limitaciones de este estudio, parece que las restauraciones de resina compuesta y RMGI pueden aumentar la resistencia a la fractura de los dientes con defectos de reabsorcion cervical inducidos artificialmente. Sin embargo, la biodentina y el MTA como cemento bioactivo no tienen ningun efecto reforzador sobre la estructura dental. EnglishThis study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of teeth with cervical root resorptions following restoration with resin composite, resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), Biodentine, and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). Methods: 60 sound extracted single-rooted maxillary premolars were divided into 4 experimental (n=10) and 2 control (n=10) groups. Ten intact teeth served as the negative control group. In the remaining teeth, cavities were prepared with 2 mm depth, extending 1 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), and 2 mm below it. The cavities remained unrestored in the 10 positive control teeth. The cervical cavities in the remaining teeth were restored with Z250 resin composite, Fuji II LC RMGI, ProRoot MTA, and Biodentine. The teeth’ fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine and recorded in newton (N). Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test with a 95% confidence interval. Results and conclusions: Significant differences were noted in the fracture resistance of composite resin and RMGI with the positive control group (P0.05). Within this study’s limitations, it seems that the resin composite and RMGI restorations can increase the fracture resistance of teeth with artificially-induced cervical resorption defects. However, Biodentine and MTA as bioactive cement have no strengthening effect on the tooth structure.
Keywords:
- Correction
- Source
- Cite
- Save
- Machine Reading By IdeaReader
0
References
0
Citations
NaN
KQI