Atalay C, Yazici A R, Horuztepe A, Nagas E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G
Oper Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;41(5):E131-E140. doi: 10.2341/15-320-L. Epub 2016 Jun 28.
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of restorative resins.
Seventy-two sound maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into six groups (n=12). The teeth in the first group were left intact and tested as unprepared negative control (group I) specimens. The teeth in the remaining five groups were prepared with MOD cavities and endodontically treated. The teeth in one of the five groups (positive control group II) were unrestored. The rest of the prepared cavities were restored as follows: group III: bulk fill resin composite/Filtek Bulk Fill (3M ESPE); group IV: bulk fill flowable resin composite + nanohybrid/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram.X Mono (Dentsply); group V: fiber-reinforced composite + posterior resin composite/GC everX posterior + G-aenial posterior (GC Corp.); and group VI: nanohybrid resin composite/Tetric N-Ceram (Ivoclar/Vivadent). Each restorative material was used with its respective adhesive system. The restored teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C and were then thermocycled (5-55°C, 1000×). Specimens were subjected to a compressive load until fracture at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by the post hoc Tukey honestly significantly different test (p<0.05).
Sound premolar teeth (group I negative control) showed significantly higher fracture resistance than did the other tested groups (p<0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the fracture resistance values of the restored groups (groups III, IV, V, and VI) (p>0.05). The lowest values were obtained in the positive control group (group II); these values were significantly lower than those of the other groups (p<0.05).
The fracture resistance values of endodontically treated teeth restored with either bulk fill/bulk fill flowable or fiber-reinforced composite were not different from those restored with conventional nanohybrid resin composite.
本体外研究的目的是评估用不同类型修复树脂修复的根管治疗牙齿的抗折性。
72颗完好的上颌前磨牙随机分为六组（n = 12）。第一组牙齿保持完整，作为未预备的阴性对照（I组）标本进行测试。其余五组牙齿制备MOD洞型并进行根管治疗。五组中的一组（阳性对照组II）未进行修复。其余制备好的洞型按以下方式修复：III组：大块充填树脂复合材料/Filtek Bulk Fill（3M ESPE）；IV组：大块充填可流动树脂复合材料+纳米混合材料/SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram.X Mono（登士柏）；V组：纤维增强复合材料+后牙树脂复合材料/GC everX posterior + G-aenial posterior（GC公司）；VI组：纳米混合树脂复合材料/Tetric N-Ceram（义获嘉/伟瓦登特）。每种修复材料均与各自的粘结系统一起使用。修复后的牙齿在37°C蒸馏水中储存24小时，然后进行热循环（5 - 55°C，1000次）。标本以0.5 mm/min的十字头速度承受压缩载荷直至断裂。数据采用单因素方差分析，随后进行事后Tukey真实显著差异检验（p < 0.05）。
完好的前磨牙（I组阴性对照）显示出比其他测试组显著更高的抗折性（p < 0.05）。修复组（III、IV、V和VI组）的抗折性值未发现统计学上的显著差异（p > 0.05）。阳性对照组（II组）获得的数值最低；这些数值显著低于其他组（p < 0.05）。
用大块充填/大块充填可流动或纤维增强复合材料修复的根管治疗牙齿的抗折性值与用传统纳米混合树脂复合材料修复的牙齿无异。
