An assessment of fracture resistance of three composite resin core build-up materials on three prefabricated non-metallic posts, cemented in endodontically treated teeth: anin vitrostudy

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Flexural Strength of Four Different Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study

AIM

To evaluate and compare the fracture toughness and flexural strength of four different core build-up materials.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 60 samples were divided into four groups (n = 15) group I: dual cure composite resin reinforced with zirconia particles (Luxacore Z), group II: light cure composite resin (Lumiglass DeepCure), group III: zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) (Zirconomer Improved), and group IV: chemically cure composite resin (Self Comp) respectively. All the core build-up materials were manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions and poured into the mold. A universal testing machine applied a central load to the specimen in a 3-point bending mode. Fracture of the specimen was identified and the reading was recorded by the universal testing machine. The data were analyzed statistically using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and then compared.

RESULTS

Group I showed the highest flexural strength (48.65 MPa) among all the groups while group IV showed the lowest flexural strength (17.90 MPa). Group I showed the highest fracture toughness (99.12 MPa) among all the groups while group IV showed the lowest fracture toughness (36.41 MPa.cm-0.5). When mean flexural strength and fracture toughness values of all four groups were compared by using one-way ANOVA, the compared data was highly significant.

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of this study, dual cure composite resin was the material of choice in terms of flexural strength and fracture toughness for core build-up material followed by light cure composite resin.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The core buildup material serves to strengthen the tooth structure, allowing it to withstand the forces of chewing and preventing the risk of tooth fractures. This material is essential in restoring damaged or decayed teeth, as it provides a stable foundation for further dental work. By reinforcing the tooth structure, the core buildup material ensures that the tooth can function properly and remain healthy for years to come. How to cite this article: Nakade P, Thaore S, Bangar B, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Flexural Strength of Four Different Core Build-up Materials: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):191-195.

Evaluation of Poly(etheretherketone) Post's Mechanical Strength in Comparison with Three Metal-Free Biomaterials: An In Vitro Study

The thinking about metallic replacement has begun in a global context of reducing metallic alloys' use in odontology. Among the materials proposed for their replacement, poly(etheretherketone) may present interesting properties, especially in removable dentures' frames. The purpose of this study is to evaluate fracture resistance of PEEK posts-and-cores compared to non-metallic CAD/CAM materials and fiber glass posts. Forty extracted maxillary central incisors were prepared to receive posts. Samples were divided into four groups depending on whether they had been reconstructed with LuxaCam® PEEK, Enamic®, Numerys GF® or LuxaPost®. Samples were submitted to an oblique compressive test and results were statistically analyzed with ANOVA and Student's tests (or non-parametric tests depending on the conditions). Glass fiber posts and Numerys GF® reveal a significantly higher fracture resistance than LuxaCam® PEEK and Enamic®. No exclusively dental fracture has been noted for the Enamic group, which significantly distinguishes these samples from the three other groups. In our study, it appears that the conception of posts and cores with hybrid ceramic never conducts to a unique tooth fracture. By weighting the results according to the materials used, our data, obtained for the first time on this type of PEEK block, cannot confirm the possibility of using PEEK for inlay-core conception, excepted for specific cases when the material is considered in a patient presenting allergies or systemic disease contraindicating resin or metal.

Immediate and long-term microshear bond strength of resin-based cements to core build-up materials

Background

To evaluate the microshear bond strength (μ-SBS) between resin-based cements and core build-up materials after water storage.

Material and Methods

Cylinders (1x1 mm) of conventional dual-cure resin cement (RelyX ARC, 3M ESPE), universal dual-cure resin cement (RelyX Ultimate, 3M ESPE) or self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200, 3M ESPE) were adhered to disks (6x2 mm) made with commercial core build-up materials (Bis-Core, Bisco or LuxaCore Z, DMG) or conventional nanocomposite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE). The specimens (n=10) were submitted to μ-SBS test using a universal testing machine and fracture pattern analysis at 48 hours or after 9 months of water storage. The data were evaluated by three-way ANOVA for repeated measures and Tukey’s test (α=0.05).

Results

After 48 hours, regardless of the resin-based cement used, the μ-SBS to the conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT) was greater compared to other materials. However, after 9 months, there was a statistically significant decrease in μ-SBS values between the conventional resin composite and evaluated luting agents. The μ-SBS values of core build-up commercial materials (Bis-Core and LuxaCore Z) did not change over time. Regardless of the composite used and storage time, there was no statistically significant difference between the resin-based cements. After 48 h, the most prevalent failure was mixed for all groups. However, after 9 months, the core build-up materials showed a predominantly mixed fracture pattern whereas the resin composite presented an adhesive pattern.

Conclusions

Commercial core build-up materials achieved stable bonding performance with resin-based cements over time.

Key words:Composite resins, resin cement, dental restoration failure.

Cleaning and Conditioning of Contaminated Core Build-Up Material before Adhesive Bonding

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of different cleaning and conditioning procedures after contamination on the tensile bond strength (TBS) of a luting resin to a core build-up composite resin. Specimens (n = 384) made of a core build-up material were stored for 3 weeks in 37 °C water. Half of the specimens were contaminated with saliva and a disclosing silicone and then cleaned either using phosphoric acid, a pumice suspension, air-abrasion with alumina or polishing powder. Surface conditioning was performed by either using a dentin adhesive, a silane containing primer or a composite resin primer, which resulted in 24 unique combinations of 16 specimens per group. Before measuring TBS, half of the specimens of each group were stored in 37 °C water for 3d or were artificially aged for 150 days. Results show that cleaning with pumice or air-abrasion are superior methods compared to using a polishing powder or phosphoric acid. Silane is an inferior conditioning agent compared to composite or dentin primers. Ideally, after contamination, bonding surfaces should be cleaned with a pumice suspension and conditioned with a dentin adhesive. Those surfaces could also be cleaned and conditioned with air-abrasion with alumina particles and a composite resin primer.