Effect of resin cements and aging on cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of teeth restored with composite resin inlays.

Abstract

PURPOSE:

To evaluate the influence of resin cements and aging on cuspal deflection, fracture resistance, and mode of failure of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite resin inlays.

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

Seventy-two maxillary premolars were divided into 6 groups: 1: sound teeth as control (C); 2: preparations without restoration (WR); 3: inlays luted with RelyX ARC (ARC); 4: inlays luted with RelyX Unicem (RLXU); 5: inlays luted with Maxcem Elite (MCE); 6: inlays luted with SeT (ST). Groups 2 to 6 received mesio-occlusal-distal preparations and endodontic treatment. Stone casts were made for groups 3 to 6. Composite resin inlays were built over each cast and luted with the resin cements. A 200-N load was applied on the occlusal aspect and the cuspal deflection was measured using a micrometer before and after 500,000 cycles of fatigue loading (200 N; 500,000 cycles). The specimens were then submitted to an axial load until failure.

RESULTS:

The median cuspal deflection (µm) and median fracture resistance (N) were calculated and statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p < 0.01). Values followed by the same letter represent no statistically significant difference. Cuspal deflection before cyclic loading: C = 3 µma; ARC = 4 µmab; RLXU= 5 µmab; MCE = 21 µmb; ST = 51 µmbc; WR = 69 µmc. Cuspal deflection after cyclic loading: ARC = 6 µma; RLXU = 19 µmab; MCE = 33 µmb; ST = 62 µmb. Fracture resistance in N: C = 1902a; ARC = 980b; RLXU = 670c; MCE = 533c; ST = 601c; WR = 526c. According to the Wilcoxon test, there was no statistical difference between the cuspal deflection before and after cyclic loading only for ARC (p = 0.015). There was a predominance of recovery fractures for the restored groups.

CONCLUSION:

Composite resin inlays luted with RelyX ARC maintained cuspal deflection stability and showed higher fracture resistance of the teeth than did inlays luted with the other cements tested.

• Authors: Aurélio Salaverry, Gilberto Antonio Borges, Eduardo Gonçalves Mota, Luiz Henrique Burnett Júnior, Ana Maria Spohr
• Journal: The journal of adhesive dentistry (J Adhes Dent) Vol. 15 Issue 6 Pg. 561-8 (Dec 2013) ISSN: 1461-5185 [Print] Germany
• PMID: 23653900 (Publication Type: Comparative Study, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial)

Chemical References

• Composite Resins
• Dental Materials
• Maxcem
• Methacrylates
• Polymethacrylic Acids
• Polyurethanes
• Rely X Unicem
• RelyX ARC
• Resin Cements
• filtek Z350
• urethane dimethacrylate luting resin
• Polyethylene Glycols
• Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate

Topics

• Acid Etching, Dental (methods)
• Bicuspid (pathology)
• Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate (chemistry)
• Composite Resins (chemistry)
• Curing Lights, Dental (classification)
• Dental Cavity Preparation (instrumentation, methods)
• Dental Materials (chemistry)
• Dental Stress Analysis (instrumentation)
• Humans
• Inlays
• Materials Testing
• Methacrylates (chemistry)
• Polyethylene Glycols (chemistry)
• Polymethacrylic Acids (chemistry)
• Polyurethanes (chemistry)
• Resin Cements (chemistry)
• Root Canal Obturation (methods)
• Root Canal Preparation (methods)
• Stress, Mechanical
• Time Factors
• Tooth Crown (pathology)
• Tooth Fractures (physiopathology)
• Tooth, Nonvital (physiopathology, therapy)