Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics

Register      Login

VOLUME 6 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored by Layered and Nonlayered Composite Resin

Aruna K Veronica, Manivannan Manimaran, Shamini Sai, V Susila Anand

Keywords : Bulk-fill composite, Direct composite, Fracture resistance, Flowable composite

Citation Information : Veronica AK, Manimaran M, Sai S, Anand VS. Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored by Layered and Nonlayered Composite Resin. J Oper Dent Endod 2021; 6 (2):62-64.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0114

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 24-05-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Abstract

Composite is the most esthetic direct tooth-colored restorative material. Improvement in resin-based composite technology has increased the acceptance of this material among dental professionals particularly for posterior teeth. Composite should be strong enough to prevent bulk fracture. In this study, we compared fracture resistance of bulk-fill composites with flowable liner underneath bulk-fill. Materials and methods: In this in vitro study, 20 teeth were divided into 2 groups of 10 each. Ideal class II cavities were done, Group A was restored with bulk-fill, and Group B was restored with flowable composite underneath bulk-fill. Fracture resistance of the teeth was measured by a Universal Testing Machine. Results: There was a significant difference (p = 0.05) in fracture resistance between the two groups. The mean value of Group A was 0.4870 kN and Group B was 0.6110 kN. Conclusion: Within the limitation of the study, it is concluded that flowable composite underneath bulk-fill improves the fracture resistance of the teeth when compared to only bulk-fill.


PDF Share
  1. Lutz F, Setcos JC, Phillips RW, et al. Dental restorative: types and characteristic. Dent Clin North Am 1983;27(4):697–712. PMID: 6360729.
  2. Alsharif SO, Arifin Z, Ishak BM, et al. An overview on dental composite restorative “white filling”. Ann Inter J Eng 2010;8(2):95–100.
  3. Summit JB, Robbins JW, Hilton TJ, et al. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. A contemporary approach. 2013.
  4. Wei Stephen HY, Jenson M. Composite resin in restoration, Chapter 12. In: Wei Stephen HY, editor. Pediatric dentistry–total patient care. Philadelphia: Lea and Febiger; 1988. p. 199–223.
  5. Mutter J, Naumann J, Sadaghiani C, et al. Amalgam studies: disregarding basic principles of mercury toxicity. Int J Hyg Environ Health 200;207(4):391–397. DOI: 10.1078/1438-4639-00305.
  6. Teel TT. Bulk fill composites a step by step case presentation, Perio-implant advisory. 2014. p. 1–4. Available from: https://www.perioimplantadvisory.com/restorative-dentistry/article/16411960/bulkfill-composites-a-stepbystep-case-presentation.
  7. Rawls HR. In: Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, editors. Phillips science of dental material. 12th ed. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Reed Elsevier India Private Limited; 2013. p. 302.
  8. Taher NM. Mechanical properties of flowable composites. Saudi Dent J 2001;13(1):20–24.
  9. Anusavice KJ. In: Anusavice KJ, Shen C, Rawls HR, editors. Phillips science of dental material. 12th ed. Gurgaon, Haryana, India: Reed Elsevier India Private Limited; 2013. p. 64.
  10. Fujishima A, Ferracane JL. Comparison of four modes of fracture toughness testing for dental composites. Dent Mater 1996;12(1): 38–43. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(96)80062-5.
  11. Da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Donassollo TA, Cenci MS, et al. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent Mater 2011;27(10):955–963. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.06.001.
  12. da Rosa Rodolpho PA, Cenci MS, Donassollo TA. A clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: 17-year findings. J Dent 2006;34(7):427–435. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.09.006.
  13. Gaengler P, Hoyer I, Montag R. Clinical evaluation of posterior composite restorations: the 10-year report. J Adhes Dent 2001;3(2):185–194. PMID: 11570687.
  14. Turkun LS, Aktener BO, Ates M. Clinical evaluation of different posterior resin composite materials: a 7-year report. Quintessence Int 2003;34(6):418–426. PMID: 12859086.
  15. Monga P, Sharma V, Kumar S. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(4):154–159. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.58338.
  16. Hada YS, Panwar S. Comparison of the fracture resistance of three different recent composite systems in large class II mesio-occlusal distal cavities: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(3):287–291. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_225_18.
  17. Lassila LV, Nagas E, Vallittu PK, et al. Translucency of flowable bulkfill composites of various thicknesses. Chin J Dent Res 2012;15(1):31–35. PMID: 22866280.
  18. El-Safty S, Silikas N, Akhtar R, et al. Nanoindentation creep versus bulk compressive creep of dental resincomposites. Dent Mater 2012;28(11):1171–1182. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.012.
  19. El-Safty S, Silikas N, Watts DC. Creep deformation of restorative resin-composites intended for bulk-fill placement. Dent Mater 2012;28(8):928–935. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.038.
  20. Tetric evo-ceram bulkfill: scientific documentation Tetric® N-Ceram Bulk Fill Joanna-C. Todd Dr Marion Wanner Issued: June 2014. Available from: https://ivodent.hu/__docs/804_e4ae28aad784fe61473f156ca4e1dc89.pdf.
  21. Gupta R, Tomes AK, Kumara A, et al. Bulkfill flowable composites resin: a review. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3(2):38–40.
  22. Schenck L, Burtscher P, Vogel K, et al. Major breakthrough in the field of direct posterior composite. Thanks to the combined use of Tetric Evo Ceram bulkfill and bluphase style. Special feature. DZW 2011;38:113–115. Available from: https://cdn.vivarep.com/contrib/va/documents/al_hnd_tetric_evoceram_viva1.20137101456152454.pdf.
  23. The feature of composite technology available now, the fast posterior composite “Tetric Evo Ceram Bulkfill Composite. A scientific documentation by: Ivoclair Vivadent AG.Joanna-Claire todd/Dr.Marion Wanner Issued 2014. Available from: https://www.ivoclarvivadent.nl/zoolu-website/media/document/17021/Tetric+EvoCeram+Bulk+Fill.
  24. Garcia D, Yaman P, Dennison J, et al. Polymerization shrinkage and depth of cure of bulkfill flowable composite. Oper Dent 2014;39(4):441–448. DOI: 10.2341/12-484-L.
  25. Francis AV, Braxton AD, Ahmad W, et al. Cuspal flexure and extent of bulkfill flowable base composite. Oper Dent 2015;40(5):515–523. DOI: 10.2341/14-235-L.
  26. Strassler HE. Flowable composite resin: clinical update. Benco Dent 2007;63–68.
  27. Unterbrink GL, Lienbenberg WH. The use of flowable composite as a filled adhesive. Literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30(4):249–257. PMID: 10635252.
  28. Sachan S, Srivastav I, Ranjan M. Flowable composite resin: a versatile material. IOSR J Dent Med Sci (IOSR-JDMS) 2016;15(6):71–74. DOI: 10.9790/0853-1506087174.
  29. Olmez A, Ozats N, Bodur H. The effect of flowable resin composite on microleakage and internal voids in class II composite restoration. Oper Dent 2004;29(6):713–719. PMID: 15646229.
  30. Brown PL. Flowable composites: the unsung heros of bonding. Dr.Bicuspid.com. 2010. Available from: https://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=log&itemID=305410.
  31. Kaisarly D, Meierhofer D, El Gezawi M, et al. Effects of flowable liners on the shrinkage vectors of bulk-fill composites. Clin Oral Invest 2021;25(8):4927–4940. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03801-2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.