Fogorvosi szemle, 2019 (112. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)
2019-12-01 / 4. szám
FOGORVOSI SZEMLE 112. évf. 4. sz. 2019.n 122 15. LEE MR, CHO BH, SON HH, UM CM, LEE IB: Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restoration. Dent Mater 2007; 288–295. 16. lemPel e, őri z, szalma J, lovász bv, kiss a, tótH á, kunsági-MÁTÉ S: Effect of exposure time and pre-heating on the conversion degree of conventional, bulk-fill, fiber reinforced and polyacid-modified resin composites. Dent Mater 2019; 217–228. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2018.11.017 17. LEMPEL E, TÓTH Á, FÁBIÁN T, KRAJCÁR K, SZALMA J: Retrospective evaluation of posterior direct composite restorations: 10-year findings. Dent Mater 2015; 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/ j.dental.2014.11.001 18. LIN CL, CHANG CH, KO CC: Multifactorial analysis of an MOD restored human premolar using auto-mesh finite element approach. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 576–585. 19. MAGNE P, OGANESYAN T: CT scan-based finite element analysis of premolar cuspal deflection following operative procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2009; 361–369. 20. OSKOEE PA, AJAMI AA, NAVIMIPOUR EJ, OSKOEE SS, SADJADI J: The effect of three composite fiber insertion techniques on fracture resistance of root-filled teeth. J Endod 2009; 413–416. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.027 21. PAPADOPOLUOS C, DIONYSOPOULOS D, TOLIDIS K, KOUROS P, KOLI-niotou-koumPia e, tsitrou ea: Structural Integrity Evaluation of Large MOD Restorations Fabricated With a Bulk-Fill and a CAD/CAM Resin Composite Material. Oper Dent 2019; 312–321. https://doi.org/10.2341/18-013-L 22. PLOTINO G, BUONO L, GRANDE NM, LAMORGESE V, SOMMA F: Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2008; 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60047-5 23. REEH ES, MESSER HH, DOUGLAS WH: Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989; 512–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80191-8 24. ROCCA GT, SARATTI CM, PONCET A, FEILZER AJ, KREJCI I: The influence of FRCs reinforcement on marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM composite resin endocrowns after simulated fatigue loading. Odontology 2016; 220–232. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-015 -0202-9 25. scotti n, coero borga Fa, alovisi m, rota r, Pasqualini D, BERUTTI E: Is fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored with indirect onlay composite restorations influenced by fibre post insertion? J Dent 2012; 814–820. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.06.005 26. soares cJ, Faria-e-silva al, roDrigues mP, vilela abF, PFeiFER CS, TANTBIROJN D és mtsai: Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements – What do we need to know? Braz Oral Res 2017; 49–63. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807 -3107bor-2017.vol31.0062 27. SZABÓ B, EÖRDEGH G, SZABÓ PB, FRÁTER M: In vitro fracture resistance of root amputated molar teeth restored with overlay a pilot study. Fogorv Szle 2017; 111–116. 28. TAHA NA, PALAMARA JE, MESSER HH: Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent 2009; 724–730. https://doi .org/10.1016/j.jdent.2009.05.027 29. TAHA NA, PALAMARA JE, MESSER HH: Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent 2011; 527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011 .05.003 30. TANNER J, TOLVANEN M, GAROUSHI S, SAILYNOJA E: Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite restorations in posterior teeth – results of 2.5 year follow-up. Open Dent J 2018; 476–485. https:// doi.org/10.2174/1874210601812010476 31. turkaslan s, tezvergil-mutluay a, bagis b, vallittu Pk, lassila lv: Effect of fiber-reinforced composites on the failure load and failure mode of composite veneers. Dent Mater J 2009; 530–536. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.530 32. VALLITTU PK: Use of woven glass fibres to reinforce a composite veneer. A fracture resistance and acoustic emission study. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 423–429. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842 .2002.00915.x 33. versluis a, versluis-tantbiroJn D: Filling cavities or restoring teeth? J Tenn Dent Assoc 2011; 36–42. T SÁRY, K NAGY Comparing direct restorations utilising fiber reinforced materials in MOD cavities – pilot study Objectives: The aim of this preliminary in vitro study was to compare the efficiency of different direct restorative techniques for restoring class II. MOD cavities in molar teeth. Methods: seventy two mandibular third molars were divided into 6 groups (n = 12). Except for the control group (intact teeth, Group 1), in all other groups deep MOD cavities were prepared. The cavities were restored by different direct restorative techniques (Group 2–6). Group 2: conventional resin-based composite (RBC), Group 3: replacing the missing dentine with short-fiber reinforced composite (SFRC) and occlusally covered with 1 mm RBC, Group 4: fiber net inserted in a buccal to lingual direction placed on the base of the cavity and finished with SFRC and RBC, Group 5: SFRC with fiber net placed on top of it in a buccal to lingual direction and finished with RBC, Group 6: fiber net placed circumferentially into the cavity and finished with SFRC and RBC. The specimens were submitted to static load to fracture test. Results: the intact teeth (Group 1) yielded the highest fracture resistance values among all groups. There was no statistically significant difference between Group 1, 3 and 6. In all groups, the fracture pattern was mostly restorable, except for Group 2 showing non restorable fractures predominantly. Conclusions: The application of fiber net circumferentially with SFRC produced fracture resistance values closly resembling the values with intact teeth. Cavities restored with conventional RBC filling showed significantly worse values regarding fracture resistance compared to intact teeth. Keywords: MOD cavity, short fiber-reinforced composite, resin-based composite filling, fiber net, fracture pattern Original article
