Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: Fracture resistance and fracture mode

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

Volumn 99, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 30-37

  Soares, Paulo Vinicius ^a   Santos Filho, Paulo Cesar Freitas ^a   Martins, Luis Roberto Marcondes ^b   Soares, Carlos Jose ^a  

^a FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF UBERLÂNDIA   (Brazil)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CAMPINAS   (Brazil)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACRYLIC ACID RESIN; BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; COMPOSITE DENTAL RESIN; DENTAL ALLOY; GLASS CERAMICS; POLYURETHAN; RESIN; UNCLASSIFIED DRUG;

ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ARTICLE; CASE CONTROL STUDY; CERAMICS; CHEMISTRY; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DENTAL CARE; DENTAL SURGERY; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; METHODOLOGY; PATHOPHYSIOLOGY; PREMOLAR TOOTH; STATISTICS; TOOTH FRACTURE; TOOTH PULP DISEASE;

ACRYLIC RESINS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; BICUSPID; CASE-CONTROL STUDIES; CERAMICS; COMPOSITE RESINS; COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH; DENTAL AMALGAM; DENTAL CAVITY PREPARATION; DENTAL MATERIALS; DENTAL RESTORATION, PERMANENT; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; HUMANS; POLYURETHANES; TOOTH FRACTURES; TOOTH, NONVITAL;

EID: 37549059138     PISSN: 00223913     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Eakle W. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with class II bonded composite resin. J Dent Res 65 (1986) 149-153
2. Khera S., Askarieh Z., and Jakobsen J. Adaptability of two amalgams to finished cavity walls in Class II cavity preparations. Dent Mater 6 (1990) 5-9
3. Burke F. Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. J Dent 20 (1992) 131-139
4. Helfer A., Melnick S., and Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 34 (1972) 661-670
5. Mondelli J., Steagall L., Ishikiriama A., de Lima Navarro F., and Soares F. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent 43 (1980) 419-422
6. Goerig A., and Mueninghoff L. Management of the endodontically treated tooth. Part II: Technique. J Prosthet Dent 49 (1983) 491-497
7. Eakle W., Staninec M., and Lacy A. Effect of bonded amalgam on the fracture resistance of teeth. J Prosthet Dent 68 (1992) 257-260
8. Kishen A., Kumar G., and Chen N. Stress-strain response in human dentine: rethinking fracture predilection in postcore restored teeth. Dent Traumatol 20 (2004) 90-100
9. Ortega V., Pegoraro L., Conti P., do Valle A., and Bonfante G. Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars, restored with ceromer or heat-pressed ceramic inlays and fixed with dual-resin cements. J Oral Rehabil 31 (2004) 393-397
10. Schwartz R., and Robbins J. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 30 (2004) 289-301
11. Wu M., van der Sluis L., and Wesselink P. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent 32 (2004) 265-268
12. Larson T., Douglas W., and Geistfeld R. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent 6 (1981) 2-5
13. Ross I. Fracture susceptibility of endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 6 (1980) 560-565
14. Trope M., Langer I., Maltz D., and Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol 2 (1986) 35-38
15. Sedgley C., and Messer H. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle. J Endod 18 (1992) 332-335
16. Steele A., and Johnson B. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. J Endod 25 (1999) 6-8
17. Morin D., DeLong R., and Douglas W. Cusp reinforcement by the acid-etch technique. J Dent Res 63 (1984) 1075-1078
18. Soares C., Matins L., Fonseca R., Correr-Sobrinho L., and Fernandes-Neto A. Influence of cavity preparation design on fracture resistance of posterior Leucite-reinforced ceramic restorations. J Prosthet Dent 95 (2006) 421-429
19. Hansen E. In vivo cusp fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with MOD amalgam or MOD resin fillings. Dent Mater 4 (1988) 169-173
20. Reel D., and Mitchell R. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent 61 (1989) 177-180
21. Ausiello P., De Gee A., Rengo S., and Davidson C. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 10 (1997) 237-241
22. Schatz D., Alfter G., and Goz G. Fracture resistance of human incisors and premolars: morphological and patho-anatomical factors. Dent Traumatol 17 (2001) 167-173
23. Pilo R., Cardash H., Levin E., and Assif D. Effect of core stiffness on the in vitro fracture of crowned, endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 88 (2002) 302-306
24. Cerutti A., Flocchini P., Madini L., Mangani F., Putignano A., and Docchio F. Effects of bonded composites vs. amalgam on resistance to cuspal deflection for endodontically-treated premolar teeth. Am J Dent 17 (2004) 295-300
25. Assif D., Nissan J., Gafni Y., and Gordon M. Assessment of the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated molars restored with amalgam. J Prosthet Dent 89 (2003) 462-465
26. Hansen E., Asmussen E., and Christiansen N. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol 6 (1990) 49-55
27. Mondelli R., Barbosa W., Mondelli J., Franco E., and Carvalho R. Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restored with amalgam with and without cusp coverage. Am J Dent 11 (1998) 181-184
28. Eakle W. Increasing the resistance of teeth to fracture: bonded composite resin versus glass ionomer cement. Dent Mater 1 (1985) 229-230
29. Reeh E., Messer H., and Douglas W. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 15 (1989) 512-516
30. Hernandez R., Bader S., Boston D., and Trope M. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated premolars restored with new generation dentine bonding systems. Int Endod J 27 (1994) 281-284
31. Linn J., and Messer H. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endod 20 (1994) 479-485
32. McCullock A., and Smith B. In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. Br Dent J 161 (1986) 450-452
33. Wendt Jr. S. Microleakage and cusp fracture resistance of heat-treated composite resin inlays. Am J Dent 4 (1991) 10-14
34. Dietschi D., and Moor L. Evaluation of the marginal and internal adaptation of different ceramic and composite inlay systems after an in vitro fatigue test. J Adhes Dent 1 (1999) 41-56
35. Magne P., and Belser U. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 23 (2003) 543-555
36. Touati B., and Aidan N. Second generation laboratory composite resins for indirect restorations. J Esthet Dent 9 (1997) 108-118
37. Soares C., Martins L., Pfeifer J., and Giannini M. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect-composite and ceramic inlay systems. Quintessence Int 35 (2004) 281-286
38. Soares C., Pizi E., Fonseca R., and Martins L. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res 19 (2005) 11-16
39. Soares C., Soares P., Pereira J., and Fonseca R. Surface treatment protocols in the cementation process of ceramic and laboratory-processed composite restorations: a literature review. J Esthet Restor Dent 17 (2005) 224-235