ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020 | Volume
: 17 | Issue : 6 | Page : 412--416
Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques
Masoud Fallahinejad Ghajari1, Amir Ghasemi2, Arash Yousefi Moradi3, Khashayar Sanjari4
1 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Science, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
4 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Khashayar Sanjari
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Dental School, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak
Iran
Background: The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with incremental and bulk-fill composite application techniques.
Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, 36 extracted primary molars were nonrandomly (selectively) divided into three groups of 12 each. All teeth underwent conventional pulpotomy treatment, and mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared in such a way that the buccolingual width of the preparation was two-thirds of the intercuspal distance, and the depth of the buccal and lingual walls was 4 mm. The teeth were then restored as follows: Group 1 (control) was restored with amalgam, Group 2 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the incremental technique, and Group 3 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the bulk-fill technique. The restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling and then underwent fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Fracture resistance of groups was compared using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test.
Results: The mean fracture resistance was 1291.47 ± 603.88 N in the amalgam, 1283.08 ± 594.57 N in the Tetric N-Ceram incremental, and 1939.06 ± 134.47 N in the Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill group. The difference in this regard between Group 3 and Groups 1 and 2 was statistically significant (P = 0.019 and P= 0.035, respectively).
Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite is recommended for reinforcing the remaining tooth structure after the primary molar pulpotomy procedure. Time-saving characteristics of this material are clinically important for reducing appointment time for children.
How to cite this article:
Ghajari MF, Ghasemi A, Moradi AY, Sanjari K. Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques.Dent Res J 2020;17:412-416
|
How to cite this URL:
Ghajari MF, Ghasemi A, Moradi AY, Sanjari K. Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques. Dent Res J [serial online] 2020 [cited 2021 Jan 23 ];17:412-416
Available from: https://www.drjjournal.net/article.asp?issn=1735-3327;year=2020;volume=17;issue=6;spage=412;epage=416;aulast=Ghajari;type=0 |
|
|
|
