Pierce Andrea L, Kosaraju Amar, Gedge Joseph L, Vandewalle Kraig S
Incirlik AB, Türkiye, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
DC & MSC Utilization and Education Branch, AFPC/DPMND, Joint Base San Antonio-Randolph, Texas; Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2025 Jan 1;26(1):4-9. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3806.
The purpose of this study was to determine the fracture resistance and failure mode of direct cuspal-coverage restorations utilizing fiber-reinforced and non-fiber-reinforced materials.
Fifty extracted human mandibular third molars were prepared for mesio-occlusal-facial single cuspal-coverage restorations. Ten cuspal-coverage restorations were constructed per group using the following restorative material types: nanofill composite (NC), nanometer-scale, short-fiber-reinforced composite (NS-SFRC), micrometer-scale, short-fiber-reinforced composite (MS-SFRC) dentin base covered with a nanofill composite (MS-SFRC + NC), polyethylene fiber-based leno-weave covered with nanofill composite (PF + NC), and bonded amalgam (AM). After thermocycling and cyclic fatiguing, fracture load testing was performed on the specimens utilizing a universal testing machine. Then, each specimen was examined to determine failure mode. Data were analyzed with a one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05).
The highest fracture load was found in MS-SFRC + NC group (1112.9 ± 249.3 N), which was significantly greater than all other groups ( < 0.011). The NC group had the lowest fracture load (651.7 ± 228.3 N), but it was not significantly different from NS-SFRC (701.6 ± 209.4 N, = 0.989), PF + NC (754.7 ± 267.7 N, = 0.862), or AM (749.3 ± 213.7 N, = 0.884). The MS-SFRC + NC group had the greatest percentage of adhesive failures (70%), and the AM group had the greatest percentage of cohesive failures (80%). The NS-SFRC group had the greatest percentage of failures of the tooth/restoration complex with periodontal involvement (40%) and both the NC and PF + NC had the greatest percentage of failures of the tooth/restoration complex without periodontal involvement (20%).
The MS-SFRC + NC group had the highest fracture load and was significantly greater than all other groups-which were not significantly different from each other: MS-SFRC + NC > PF + NC = AM = NS-SFRC = NC. The observed fracture mode for the MS-SFRC + NC group was predominantly adhesive, resulting in an overall repairable failure mode.
Limited research is available evaluating the fracture resistance and failure mode of single cuspal-coverage restorations using fiber-reinforced materials. For enhanced strength in cuspal-coverage composite restorations, a micrometer-scale, short-fiber-reinforced composite dentin base combined with an overlay of an NC may be advantageous. How to cite this article: Pierce AL, Kosaraju A, Gedge JL, Fracture Resistance and Failure Modes of Cuspal-coverage Restorations Using Fiber-reinforced and Non-fiber-reinforced Materials: An Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2025;26(1):4-9.
本研究的目的是确定使用纤维增强和非纤维增强材料的直接牙尖覆盖修复体的抗折性和失效模式。
选取50颗拔除的人下颌第三磨牙，制备近中-咬合-颊侧单牙尖覆盖修复体。每组使用以下修复材料类型构建10个牙尖覆盖修复体：纳米填充复合树脂（NC）、纳米级短纤维增强复合树脂（NS-SFRC）、微米级短纤维增强复合树脂（MS-SFRC）、覆盖纳米填充复合树脂的MS-SFRC（MS-SFRC + NC）、覆盖纳米填充复合树脂的聚乙烯纤维基纱罗组织（PF + NC）以及粘结汞合金（AM）。经过热循环和循环疲劳后，使用万能试验机对试件进行抗折载荷测试。然后，检查每个试件以确定失效模式。数据采用单因素方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析（α = 0.05）。
MS-SFRC + NC组的抗折载荷最高（1112.9 ± 249.3 N），显著高于所有其他组（P < 0.011）。NC组的抗折载荷最低（651.7 ± 228.3 N），但与NS-SFRC（701.6 ± 209.4 N，P = 0.989）、PF + NC（754.7 ± 267.7 N，P = 0.862）或AM（749.3 ± 213.7 N，P = 0.884）无显著差异。MS-SFRC + NC组的粘结失败百分比最高（70%），AM组的内聚失败百分比最高（80%）。NS-SFRC组牙周受累的牙/修复复合体失败百分比最高（40%），NC组和PF + NC组无牙周受累的牙/修复复合体失败百分比最高（20%）。
MS-SFRC + NC组的抗折载荷最高，显著高于所有其他组，而其他组之间无显著差异：MS-SFRC + NC > PF + NC = AM = NS-SFRC = NC。MS-SFRC + NC组观察到的骨折模式主要是粘结性的，导致整体可修复的失效模式。
评估使用纤维增强材料的单牙尖覆盖修复体的抗折性和失效模式的研究有限。为提高牙尖覆盖复合树脂修复体的强度，微米级短纤维增强复合树脂牙本质基层与NC覆盖层相结合可能是有利的。如何引用本文：Pierce AL, Kosaraju A, Gedge JL, 纤维增强和非纤维增强材料的牙尖覆盖修复体的抗折性和失效模式：一项研究。《当代牙科实践杂志》2025；26(1):4 - 9。
Zotero 插件