|
|
|
|
Effect of proximal contour of composite restorations on fracture resistance
B.A.C. LOOMANS, J.J.M. ROETERS, N.J.M. OPDAM, and R.H. KUIJS, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, Netherlands | Objectives: To
compare in vitro the marginal ridge fracture strength of Class II composite
resin restorations inserted with help of a flat or contoured matrix band using
composite resins varying in modulus of elasticity.
Methods: In 60
artificial first molars standardized MO-preparations including mechanical
undercuts were ground. The dimension of the proximal box was 5.0 mm in width
and 6.0 mm in height. One of two matrix systems were used: 1- A flat matrix
(Standard Tofflemire Matrix, KerrHawe) in a Tofflemire retainer (Produits
Dentaire). 2- A contoured matrix (Standard matrix, Palodent, Dentsply). In both
groups, a wooden wedge and separation ring (Composi-Tight Gold, GDS) were
placed and the matrix was burnished against the adjacent tooth. These
techniques were combined with three composite resins (Filtek Supreme: modulus
of elasticity 13.3 GPa (3M ESPE); Clearfil AP-X: 16.6 GPa (Kuraray); Clearfil
Majesty Posterior: 22.0 GPa (Kuraray)) making six groups (n=10). Teeth were
mounted into a MTS servo hydraulic testing machine (Mini Bionix II, MTS System
Corp, USA) with the stylus placed on the marginal ridge. Samples were loaded at
a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min until fracture occurred. Fracture resistance
data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Scheffˇ post-hoc test for
multiple comparison of groups (p<0.05).
Results:
Contoured proximal surfaces (365.5 ± 6.0 N) resulted in significant stronger
marginal ridges compared to flat surfaces (290.5 ± 11.7 N) (p<0.001). Clearfil
AP-X (378.1 ± 21.1 N) provided a higher resistance to fracture than Filtek
Supreme (301.4 ± 15.1 N) (p=0.001) and Clearfil Majesty Posterior (304.5 ± 15.8
N) (p=0.002). No differences were found between Filtek Supreme and Clearfil
Majesty Posterior (p=0.890).
Conclusion: Use of a
contoured matrix results in a stronger marginal ridge of a Class II composite
resin restoration. A higher modulus of elasticity does not necessarily lead to
a higher fracture resistance.
| Seq #10 - Strength of Restorative Materials 2:15 PM-3:45 PM, Wednesday, July 2, 2008 Metro Toronto Convention Centre Room 801B |
Back to the Dental Materials 1: Adhesion - Bond Strength Testing and Mechanisms Program
|
|