In vitro fracture strength and patterns in root-filled teeth restored with different base materials

Suitability of Direct Resin Composites in Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth (ETT)

(1) Background: The in vitro study aimed to investigate mechanical characteristics of resin composites and their suitability in direct restauration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT). (2) Methods: 38 endodontically treated premolars with occlusal access cavities were directly restored using the following resin composites and adhesives: Tetric Evo Ceram® + Syntac classic® (n = 10), Venus Diamond® + iBond Total-Etch® (n = 10), Grandio® + Solobond M® (n = 9), Estelite® Sigma Quick + Bond Force® (n = 9). After thermocycling, the elastic modulus, shear-bond-strength, fracture load (Fmax) and fracture mode distribution were evaluated. Statistical analysis: one-way ANOVA, t-test, Kruskal-Wallis test; p < 0.05. (3) Results: Grandio® showed the highest E-modulus (15,857.9 MPa) which was significant to Venus Diamond® (13,058.83 MPa), Tetric Evo Ceram® (8636.0 MPa) and Estelite® Sigma Quick (7004.58 MPa). The highest shear-bond-strength was observed for Solobond M® (17.28 MPa), followed by iBond® (16.61 MPa), Syntac classic® (16.41 MPa) and Bond Force® (8.37 MPa, p < 0.05). The highest fracture load (Fmax) was estimated for ETT restored with Venus Diamond® (1106.83 N), followed by Estelite® Sigma Quick (1030.1 N), Tetric Evo Ceram® (1029 N) and Grandio® (921 N). Fracture-mode distribution did not show any significant differences. (4) Conclusions: The observed resin composites and adhesives show reliable mechanical characteristics and seem to be suitable for direct restoration of endodontically treated teeth.

Biological considerations of dental materials as orifice barriers for restoring root-filled teeth

There is ample published literature regarding the technical aspects of restoring root-filled teeth, but little concerning the biological impacts, consequences, and criteria for the selection of direct restorative materials following endodontic treatment. The provision of an effective coronal seal in addition to a sound root filling is known to be important in the prevention of root canal infection. This review seeks to explore the evidence concerning the selection of dental materials in the restoration of root-filled teeth, specifically with a close examination of the properties of commonly used materials as orifice barriers. © 2023 Australian Dental Association.

Base Materials' Influence on Fracture Resistance of Molars with MOD Cavities

The aim of this study was to compare fracture resistance of teeth presenting medium-sized mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities using different base materials. Thirty-six extracted molars were immersed for 48 h in saline solution (0.1% thymol at 4 °C) and divided into six groups. In group A, the molars were untouched, and in group B, cavities were prepared, but not filled. In group C, we used zinc polycarboxylate cement, in group D—conventional glass ionomer cement, in group E—resin modified glass ionomer cement, and in group F—flow composite. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal loading machine (Lloyd Instruments) with a maximum force of 5 kN and a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min; we used NEXYGEN Data Analysis Software and ANOVA Method (p < 0.05). The smallest load that determined the sample failure was 2780 N for Group A, 865 N for Group B, 1210 N for Group C, 1340 N for Group D, 1630 N for Group E and 1742 N for Group F. The highest loads were 3050 N (A), 1040 N (B), 1430 N (C), 1500 N (D), 1790 N (E), and 3320 N (F), the mean values being 2902 ± 114 N (A), 972 ± 65 N (B), 1339 ± 84 N (C), 1415 ± 67 N (D), 1712 ± 62 N (E), and 2334 ± 662 N (F). A p = 0.000195 shows a statistically significant difference between groups C, D, E and F. For medium sized mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities, the best base material regarding fracture resistance was flow composite, followed by glass ionomer modified with resin, conventional glass ionomer cement and zinc polycarboxylate cement. It can be concluded that light-cured base materials are a better option for the analyzed use case, one of the possible reasons being their compatibility with the final restoration material, also light-cured.

The effect of radiotherapy delivery time and obturation materials on the fracture resistance of mandibular premolars

OBJECTIVES

This ex vivo study was performed to investigate the effect of radiotherapy (RT) delivery time on fracture resistance of mandibular premolars filled with Biodentine or gutta-percha/sealer (GPS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-two mandibular premolars were used in this study. Randomly selected 24 teeth were kept intact for the control groups (with and without irradiation). Then, the remaining 48 teeth were randomly assigned into 4 groups (n = 12) according to RT delivery time (irradiated before or after root canal treatment) and obturation materials as follows: Group RT + GPS, Group: GPS + RT, Group RT + Biodentine and Group Biodentine + RT. The samples were either initially endodontically treated and then irradiated or initially irradiated and then endodontically treated with one of the abovementioned materials. The samples were irradiated at 2 Gy per fraction, 5 times a week for a total dose of 60 Gy in 30 fractions over 6 weeks. The roots were embedded in self-polymerizing acrylic resin. The fracture resistance was evaluated in a universal testing machine. Data was analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc test at p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Radiation therapy significantly reduced fracture resistance of intact teeth (p < 0.05). The highest fracture resistance was observed in intact/non-irradiated teeth and the lowest fracture resistance in Biodentine + RT group (p < 0.05). The effect of RT delivery time was insignificant when GPS was preferred as the root canal filling material (p > 0.05); it was significant when preferring Biodentine (p < 0.05). When RT was applied to the teeth after Biodentine obturation, the fracture resistance decreased significantly compared to the teeth that were obturated with GPS after or before RT application (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Both RT time and obturation materials (Biodentine or gutta-percha/sealer) affect the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated teeth.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Endodontic treatment could be completed with both materials after RT; however, when the endodontic treatment was initially completed and the teeth were subsequently exposed to RT, it was shown that the reinforcement effect of Biodentine decreased.