Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques
- PMID: 37997669
- DOI: 10.1111/edt.12909
Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques
Abstract
Background/aim: Anterior teeth are prone to traumatic dental injuries (TDIs). Although a number of techniques ranging from original tooth fragment reattachment (TFR) to direct composite restoration (DCR) can be used to restore uncomplicated crown fractures, there is no consensus on which method is best. The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of bovine incisors restored by two different techniques (TFR and DCR) in three different fracture models.
Materials and methods: Sixty extracted bovine lower incisors were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20). Angle, oblique, or transverse sections of all the teeth in a group were prepared by using a disk. The cut surfaces were scanned, and the cross-sectional areas (CSA) of the enamel and dentin were measured. Half the teeth in each group were restored by DCR (n = 10) and the other half by TFR (n = 10). The forces required to fracture the restored teeth were then measured using a Universal testing machine, and the fracture modes were analyzed (cohesive, adhesive, or mixed).
Results: No statistically significant differences between the TFR and DCR restorations were detected for total and enamel CSAs in any of the restoration shapes (p > .067). The fracture forces required to break DCR angle and transverse restorations were significantly greater than for the corresponding shapes restored with TFR (p < .033). However, the difference in the forces needed to fracture oblique section restorations by DCR or TFR was not statistically significant (p = .239), despite a similar trend (143.4 ± 51 N and 120.9 ± 25 N, respectively).
Conclusion: This study revealed that a greater force is required to fracture teeth restored by the DCR than by the TFR technique, especially for a transverse section. This demonstrates that restoring a fractured tooth provides a superior outcome compared to reattaching the fractured fragment.
Keywords: crown fracture; direct composite restoration; fracture force; tooth fragment reattachment.
© 2023 The Authors. Dental Traumatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
References
REFERENCES
-
- Ghoreishizadeh A, Mohammadi F, Rezayi Y, Ghavimi M, Pourlak T. Comparison of shear bond strengths with different bevel preparations for the reattachment of fractured fragments of maxillary central incisors. Dent Traumatol. 2020;36:648–653.
-
- Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM, Andersson L. Textbook and coloratlas of traumatic injuries to the teeth. 5th ed. Oxford, UK: JohnWiley & Sons; 2018. p. 327.
-
- Tapias MA, Jiménez‐García R, Lamas F, Gil AA. Prevalence of traumatic crown fractures to permanent incisors in a childhood population: Móstoles, Spain. Dent Traumatol. 2003;19:119–122.
-
- Tovo MF, dos Santos PR, Kramer PF, Feldens CA, Sari GT. Prevalence of crown fractures in 8‐10 years old schoolchildren in Canoas, Brazil. Dent Traumatol. 2004;20:251–254.
-
- Tumen EC, Yavuz I, Kaya S, Uysal E, Tümen DS, Ay Y, et al. Prevalence of traumatic dental injuries and associated factors among 8 to 12‐years‐old schoolchildren in Diyarbakir, Turkey. Niger J Clin Pract. 2017;20:1259–1266.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources