Department of Endodontics, Bolu Abant İzzet Baysal University Faculty of Dentistry, Bolu, Turkey.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Gaziosmanpasa University Faculty of Dentistry, Tokat, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2018 Nov 29;18(1):196. doi: 10.1186/s12903-018-0663-7.
The study investigated the fracture resistance of root-filled maxillary premolars with class II cavities restored by different restorations.
A total of 55 intact maxillary premolar teeth were included (n = 11). G1 as positive control group, 44 teeth underwent root canal treatment, and MOD cavities were prepared. (G2) no restoration, (G3) direct composite restoration, (G4) direct composite strengthened with buccal to lingual pre-impregnated glass-fibers and (G5) ceramic inlay restoration. After thermocycling, fracture resistance test was performed and fracture type was recorded. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Chisquare test.
The mean fracture resistance was as follows: G1 had the highest fracture resistance, G2 had the lowest (p < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the fracture resistance values of the groups that underwent different restorations (G3, G4, G5) (p > 0.05). According to fracture type, the groups showed similar results (p > 0.05). A significant level of unrestorable fracture was detected in G5 (ceramic inlay) (p < 0.05).
All of the restoration techniques investigated herein increased the fracture strength of teeth; however, all of these values were lower than the fracture resistance of intact teeth. There were no significant differences between the fracture resistance values of the groups that underwent different restorations.
本研究调查了不同修复方法对 II 类洞型上颌前磨牙根管治疗后牙体抗力的影响。
共纳入 55 颗完整的上颌前磨牙（n=11）。G1 为阳性对照组，44 颗牙行根管治疗，预备 MOD 洞型。（G2）不修复，（G3）直接复合树脂修复，（G4）直接复合树脂增强颊舌向预浸渍玻璃纤维，（G5）陶瓷嵌体修复。冷热循环后，进行牙体抗力测试，并记录折裂类型。采用单因素方差分析和卡方检验进行数据分析。
平均牙体抗力如下：G1 组最高，G2 组最低（p<0.05）。不同修复组（G3、G4、G5）之间牙体抗力值无显著差异（p>0.05）。根据折裂类型，各组结果相似（p>0.05）。G5（陶瓷嵌体）组出现不可修复性折裂的比例较高（p<0.05）。
本研究中所有的修复技术均增加了牙体的抗折强度；但所有这些值均低于完整牙的抗折强度。不同修复组之间的牙体抗力值无显著差异。
