Fracture Resistance of Class II MOD Cavities Restored by Direct and Indirect Techniques and Different Materials Combination

5Citations
Citations of this article
39Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of class II MOD cavities restored using different techniques and materials. Sixty extracted maxillary molars were selected and standardized class II MOD cavities were prepared using a custom-made paralleling device. The specimens were divided into four groups based on the restoration technique used: Group 1 (direct resin composite), Group 2 (short-fiber-reinforced composite resin), Group 3 (composite polyethylene fiber reinforcement), and Group 4 (CAD/CAM resin inlays). Fracture resistance was assessed for each group after thermocycling aging for 10,000 cycles. The mode of fracture was assigned to five types using Burke’s classification. To compare the fracture force among the tested materials, a paired sample t-test was performed. The significance level for each test was set at p < 0.05. Significant differences in fracture resistance were observed among the different restoration techniques. CAD/CAM inlays (2166 ± 615 N), short-fiber-reinforced composite resin (2471 ± 761 N), and composite polyethylene fiber reinforcement (1923 ± 492 N) showed superior fracture resistance compared to the group restored with direct resin composite (1242 ± 436 N). The conventional resin composite group exhibited the lowest mean fracture resistance. The choice of restoration material plays a critical role in the clinical survival of large MOD cavities. CAD/CAM inlays and fiber-reinforced composites offer improved fracture resistance, which is essential for long-term success in extensive restorations.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Tsertsidou, V., Mourouzis, P., Dionysopoulos, D., Pandoleon, P., & Tolidis, K. (2023). Fracture Resistance of Class II MOD Cavities Restored by Direct and Indirect Techniques and Different Materials Combination. Polymers, 15(16). https://doi.org/10.3390/polym15163413

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free