Comparing fracture resistance on bovine incisors restored by tooth fragment reattachment versus direct composite restoration techniques.
crown fracture
direct composite restoration
fracture force
tooth fragment reattachment
Journal
Dental traumatology : official publication of International Association for Dental Traumatology
ISSN: 1600-9657
Titre abrégé: Dent Traumatol
Pays: Denmark
ID NLM: 101091305
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
24 Nov 2023
24 Nov 2023
Historique:
revised:
17
10
2023
received:
08
07
2023
accepted:
18
10
2023
pubmed:
24
11
2023
medline:
24
11
2023
entrez:
24
11
2023
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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). 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). 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND/AIM
OBJECTIVE
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Subventions
Organisme : Ernst & Tova Turnhein (n'ee Alexandrovitz) clinical research fund in Dentistry
Informations de copyright
© 2023 The Authors. Dental Traumatology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
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.
Cortes MI, Marcenes W, Sheiham A. Impact of traumatic injuries to the permanent teeth on the oral health-related quality of life in 12-14-year-old children. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2002;30:193-198.
Patnana AK, Narasimha Rao VV, Chandrabhatla SK, Rajasekhar VR. Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of two different fiber-reinforced composite restorations with particulate filler composite restorations. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;11:277-282.
Stellini E, Stomaci D, Stomaci M, Petrone N, Favero L. Fracture strength of tooth fragment reattachments with postpone bevel and overcontour reconstruction. Dent Traumatol. 2008;24:283-288.
Bourguignon C, Cohenca N, Lauridsen E, Flores MT, O'Connell AC, Day PF, et al. International Association of Dental Traumatology guidelines for the management of traumatic dental injuries: 1. Fractures and luxations. Dent Traumatol. 2020;36:314-330.
Garcia FCP, Poubel DLN, Almeida JCF, Toledo IP, Poi WR, Guerra ENS, et al. Tooth fragment reattachment techniques-a systematic review. Dent Traumatol. 2018;34:135-143.
de Sousa APBR, França K, de Lucas Rezende LVM, do Nascimento Poubel DL, Almeida JCF, de Toledo IP, et al. In vitro tooth reattachment techniques: a systematic review. Dent Traumatol. 2018;34:297-310.
Gandhi K, Nandlal B. Effect of enamel preparations on fracture resistance of composite resin buildup of fractures involving dentine in anterior bovine teeth: an in vitro study. Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2006;24:69-75.
Andreasen FM, Norén JG, Andreasen JO, Engelhardtsen S, Lindh-Strömberg U. Long-term survival of fragment bonding in the treatment of fractured crowns: a multicenter clinical study. Quintessence Int. 1995;26:669-681.
Robertson A, Robertson S, Norén JG. A retrospective evaluation of traumatized permanent teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 1997;7:217-226.
Silva-Oliveira F, Goursand D, Ferreira RC, Paiva PCP, Paiva HN, Ferreira EF, et al. Traumatic dental injuries in Brazilian children and oral health-related quality of life. Dent Traumatol. 2018;34:28-35.
Das P, Mishra L, Jena D, Govind S, Panda S, Lapinska B. Oral health-related quality of life in children and adolescents with a traumatic injury of permanent teeth and the impact on their families: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19:3087.
Yilmaz Y, Guler C, Sahin H, Eyuboglu O. Evaluation of tooth-fragment reattachment: a clinical and laboratory study. Dent Traumatol. 2010;26:308-314.
Demarco FF, Fay RM, Pinzon LM, Powers JM. Fracture resistance of re-attached coronal fragments-influence of different adhesive materials and bevel preparation. Dent Traumatol. 2004;20:157-163.
Badami AA, Dunne SM, Scheer B. An in vitro investigation into the shear bond strengths of two dentine-bonding agents used in the reattachment of incisal edge fragments. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1995;11:129-135.
Reis AF, Giannini M, Kavaguchi A, Soares CJ, Line SR. Comparison of microtensile bond strength to enamel and dentin of human, bovine, and porcine teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2004;6:117-121.
Schilke R, Lisson JA, Bauss O, Geurtsen W. Comparison of the number and diameter of dentinal tubules in human and bovine dentine by scanning electron microscopic investigation. Arch Oral Biol. 2000;45:355-361.
Soares CJ, Barbosa LM, Santana FR, Soares PB, Mota AS, Silva GR. Fracture strength of composite fixed partial denture using bovine teeth as a substitute for human teeth with or without fiber-reinforcement. Braz Dent J. 2010;21:235-240.
Loguercio AD, Mengarda J, Amaral R, Kraul A, Reis A. Effect of fractured or sectioned fragments on the fracture strength of different reattachment techniques. Oper Dent. 2004;29:295-300.
Olsburgh S, Jacoby T, Krejci I. Crown fractures in the permanent dentition: pulpal and restorative considerations. Dent Traumatol. 2002;18:103-115.
Sarapultseva M, Sarapultsev A. Long-term results of crown fragment reattachment techniques for fractured anterior teeth: a retrospective case-control study. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2019;31:290-294.
Haupt F, Meyerdiercks C, Kanzow P, Wiegand A. Survival analysis of fragment reattachments and direct composite restorations in permanent teeth after dental traumatic injuries. Dent Traumatol. 2023;39:49-56.
Bissinger R, Müller DD, Hickel R, Kühnisch J. Survival analysis of adhesive reattachments in permanent teeth with crown fractures after dental trauma. Dent Traumatol. 2021;37:208-214.