STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF DIRECT & INDIRECT COMPOSITE RESTORATIONS ON RESISTANCE TO MAXILLARY PREMOLLAR TEATH FRACTURE TREATED BY ROOT CANAL METHOD
Abstract
Finding a universally approved system to restore pulpess teeth has been a goal of many of dental researches. The restorative system should have enough ability to withstand masticator forces, while preserving as much tooth structure as possible.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of light and heat curing composite with light curing composite restoration method on fracture resistance of restored teeth. Forty healthy maxillary premolar teeth were chosen, in thirty of samples endodontic treatment performed and MOD cavities were prepared as to weaken tooth structures, the specimens were divided to 4 groups containing 10 specimens as follows.
Group 1: Unprepared
Group2: Restored with direct light curing composite resin.
Group3: Restored with light and heat curing composite resin as inlay without cementing surface treatment. Group4: Restored with light and heat curing composite resin as inlay with cementing surface treatment. All samples were subjected to compressive load by testing machine. The mean fracture load in KGF for groups 1,2,3 and 4 were 98.96, 58.72,54.04,78.36 KGF respectively.
From this study it may be concluded that the use of light and heat curing methods and cementing surface treating compared with light curing and light and heat curing method without cementing surface treating will more increase fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of light and heat curing composite with light curing composite restoration method on fracture resistance of restored teeth. Forty healthy maxillary premolar teeth were chosen, in thirty of samples endodontic treatment performed and MOD cavities were prepared as to weaken tooth structures, the specimens were divided to 4 groups containing 10 specimens as follows.
Group 1: Unprepared
Group2: Restored with direct light curing composite resin.
Group3: Restored with light and heat curing composite resin as inlay without cementing surface treatment. Group4: Restored with light and heat curing composite resin as inlay with cementing surface treatment. All samples were subjected to compressive load by testing machine. The mean fracture load in KGF for groups 1,2,3 and 4 were 98.96, 58.72,54.04,78.36 KGF respectively.
From this study it may be concluded that the use of light and heat curing methods and cementing surface treating compared with light curing and light and heat curing method without cementing surface treating will more increase fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.