Stellini Edoardo, Stomaci Dario, Stomaci Massimiliano, Petrone Nicola, Favero Lorenzo
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
Dent Traumatol. 2008 Jun;24(3):283-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00539.x.
The purpose of this study was to test the actual resistance against fracture of a crown fragment fractured and reattached using three different techniques of preparation. Forty bovine incisors were randomly assigned into four groups of which the first was the control group. The elements of the three experimental groups were all cut at a fixed distance of 3 mm for the incisal margin on the buccal surface of the crown in a plane normal to the buccal surface itself, and subsequently re-bonded using an adhesive system. After the reattachment, on the teeth of group 2, a circumferential chamfer was performed along the fracture line; on the teeth of group 3 a groove called 'overcontour' was made also along the fracture line; the teeth in group 4 received a chamfer on the buccal surface and an overcontour on the lingual surface. Finally, all the elements were encompassed in chalk blocks and the models were mounted on the 858 Mini Bionix to perform a fatigue load test. A force was applied on the buccal surface of each tooth at 1.5 mm from the incisor margin, with a velocity of 1 mm min(-1), through the use of a steel prick. All the elements of groups 2, 3 and 4 demonstrated a lower resistance to fracture in comparison with the elements of the control group. The teeth of group 2 showed a resistance to fracture equal to 36.1% of the resistance of the elements in the control group; in group 3 the resistance was equal to 50.2%, while in group 4 the resistance reached 55.9%. The difference in resistance between group 3 and group 4 did not result statistically significant (P = 0.82). Reattachment of coronal fragments does not restore the resistance to fracture to an equal level of the intact teeth, in a static test. The different techniques of preparation significantly modify the resistance to the fracture of a re-bonded fragment. The technique of the circumferential chamfer produced results that were less favourable in terms of resistance against fracture.
本研究的目的是测试使用三种不同制备技术折断并重新连接的冠碎片的实际抗断裂性。40颗牛切牙被随机分为四组,其中第一组为对照组。三个实验组的牙体均在与颊面垂直的平面上,在冠颊面距切缘3mm的固定距离处切割,随后使用粘结系统重新粘结。重新粘结后,在第2组的牙齿上,沿骨折线进行环形倒角;在第3组的牙齿上,也沿骨折线制作一个称为“外形过大”的凹槽;第4组的牙齿在颊面进行倒角,在舌面进行外形过大处理。最后,将所有牙体包裹在白垩块中,并将模型安装在858 Mini Bionix上进行疲劳载荷测试。通过使用钢针,在距切缘1.5mm处的每颗牙齿颊面施加力,速度为1mm/min(-1)。与对照组相比,第2、3和4组的所有牙体均表现出较低的抗断裂性。第2组牙齿的抗断裂性相当于对照组牙体抗断裂性的36.1%;第3组的抗断裂性为50.2%,而第4组的抗断裂性达到55.9%。第3组和第4组之间的抗断裂性差异无统计学意义(P = 0.82)。在静态测试中,冠碎片的重新连接不能将抗断裂性恢复到与完整牙齿相同的水平。不同的制备技术显著改变了重新粘结碎片的抗断裂性。环形倒角技术在抗断裂性方面产生的结果较差。