Elsevier

Journal of Dentistry

Volume 39, Issue 8, August 2011, Pages 527-535
Journal of Dentistry

Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.003Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To compare fracture characteristics of root-filled teeth with variable cavity design and resin composite restoration.

Methods

80 extracted intact maxillary premolars were divided randomly into eight groups; (1) intact teeth; (2) unrestored MOD cavity; (3) unrestored MOD cavity plus endodontic access through the occlusal floor; (4) unrestored MOD plus endodontic access with axial walls removed; (5) MOD restored with resin composite; (6) MOD plus endodontic access, resin composite; (7) MOD plus extensive endodontic access, resin composite; (8) MOD plus extensive endodontic access, GIC core and resin composite. A ramped oblique load was applied to the buccal cusp in a servohydraulic testing machine. Fracture load and fracture patterns were recorded. Fracture loads were compared statistically using 1-way ANOVA, with Dunnett test for multiple comparisons.

Results

Unrestored teeth became progressively weaker with more extensive preparations. Endodontic access confined within the occlusal floor did not significantly affect strength compared to an MOD cavity. Loss of axial walls weakened teeth considerably [292 + 80 N vs 747 + 130 N for intact teeth]. Restoration increased the strength of prepared teeth particularly in teeth without axial walls. Teeth with a GIC core were not significantly weaker than intact teeth [560 + 167 N]. Failures were mostly adhesive at the buccal interface, with the fracture propagating from the buccal line angle of the occlusal floor (MOD and MOD plus access groups) or of the proximal box (axial wall removed).

Conclusions

Direct restorations increased fracture resistance of root filled teeth with extensive endodontic access. Both restored and unrestored teeth showed similar fracture patterns.

Introduction

Direct tooth-coloured restorations are often used for root-filled teeth as a relatively low cost, aesthetic alternative to cuspal coverage restorations. Historically, both amalgam and resin composite restorations have been widely used even for posterior teeth,1, 2 with composite resin direct restorations showing good long term outcomes. More recent studies3, 4 have indicated less favourable but still reasonably high survival of teeth with direct restorations, and the prospective studies of Mannocci et al.5, 6 indicate good outcomes with both amalgam and resin composite restorations (plus a prefabricated post) over the medium term (3 years). Clearly the choice of restoration will depend on remaining tooth structure, with direct restorations limited to teeth with substantial coronal dentine. In addition to aesthetic considerations, an acceptable restoration must restore function and preserve the remaining tooth structure against fracture.

Root-filled teeth are at increased risk of fracture. Caries and excessive removal of dentine during root canal treatment, rather than low moisture content and increased brittleness7, 8 reduce tooth strength. Endodontic procedures reduce tooth strength modestly compared to extensive cavity preparations,9 but only as long as the endodontic access is confined to the occlusal floor of the cavity. Loss of axial dentine walls, which is common in teeth requiring root filling, greatly weakens teeth.8

Resin composite restorations have the advantage of bonding to tooth structure, which might strengthen the tooth and offer an alternative restorative technique to cuspal coverage. However, polymerization shrinkage is a serious drawback of these materials, resulting in cuspal strains with subsequent stress or disruption of the bond, microleakage and recurrent caries. Attempts at minimizing this problem have included the use of low shrink composites,10 incremental placement11 and the use of liners including glass ionomer, flowable composites and polyacid-modified resin composites.12, 13, 14 The performance of direct resin composites for the restoration of root filled teeth has been investigated experimentally ever since posterior resin composite materials were first introduced15, 16, 17 and clinically in both retrospective and prospective clinical studies. Despite the less favourable outcomes in comparison with cuspal coverage restorations reported in retrospective studies,3, 4 two randomised clinical trials found superior performance compared to amalgam restorations in terms of fracture resistance, but with a problem of recurrent caries. Similar survival to full coronal coverage was observed over a three year period.5, 6

In experimental studies, fracture resistance to static loading has been used as a measure of the effect of cavity preparation and/or restoration on tooth strength. Although the fracture load is typically much higher than functional occlusal loads, it is still a valid method for comparing restorative materials and different cavity designs.

Adhesive resin composite restorations have been reported to increase the fracture resistance of root filled teeth compared to non adhesive fillings.18, 19, 20, 21, 22 Fibre reinforced resin composite has also been studied as a conservative restoration, but was not found to improve the fracture strength compared to conventional resin composite.23 Different bonding systems18 and base materials including glass ionomer cement (GIC) and composites24 have also been investigated for their effect on fracture strength.

This experimental study was conducted to compare the fracture resistance of extracted root filled maxillary premolars with variable cavity design and direct restoration techniques using resin composite. In a previous study,25 preserving the proximal dentine walls of an endodontic access cavity and placement of a glass ionomer base beneath the resin composite restoration of root filled maxillary premolars significantly reduced cuspal deflection and microleakage but did not affect the strains within cusps. The null hypothesis of this study is that preserving the proximal dentine and placement of a GIC base will improve the fracture strength and result in a more favourable fracture pattern of root filled maxillary premolars restored with direct resin composites.

Section snippets

Materials and methods

Overview: Three different cavity preparations were tested: MOD, MOD plus endodontic access confined to the occlusal floor of the MOD cavity, and MOD plus extensive endodontic access with the axial walls removed between the proximal boxes and access preparation (Fig. 1). Teeth were then restored with direct resin composite material, plus an additional group in which a GIC core was placed in teeth with the extensive endodontic access before placing resin composite. All teeth were then subjected

Unrestored teeth

Intact teeth fractured at a load of 747 ± 130 N (Fig. 3). Teeth became progressively weaker with more extensive cavity preparations. MOD cavity preparation reduced fracture strength by 37.5% (467 ± 141 N, p = 0.001 compared with intact teeth). Endodontic access confined within the occlusal floor did not further reduce strength compared to an MOD cavity (442 ± 132 N, p = 0.99 compared with MOD). Removal of axial walls further weakened teeth considerably (mean load at fracture 292 ± 80 N, only 39.1% of intact

Discussion

Methods: Despite its limitations, fracture testing remains a common experimental method of evaluating restorative procedures for root filled teeth. Reeh et al. highlighted the shortcomings of destructive methods of testing, which include the non-physiologic loads required to cause fracture, the variation amongst teeth used in experimental studies, and differences in test conditions leading to fracture.17 Differences in tooth morphology (such as the difference in cross-sectional shape of the

Conclusion

Endodontic access with loss of axial walls weakened teeth by 60% compared to intact teeth. Direct resin composite restoration significantly increased fracture resistance of these teeth, with a GIC core resulting in fracture strength similar to that of intact teeth.

Acknowledgment

We would like to thank Mr. Geoff Adams from Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne for his assistance in the statistical analysis.

References (45)

  • N.A. Taha et al.

    Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2009)
  • C.J. Soares et al.

    The influence of cavity design and glass fiber posts on biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars

    Journal of Endodontics

    (2008)
  • G. Plotino et al.

    Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations

    Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

    (2008)
  • F.P. Nothdurft et al.

    The fracture behavior of premolar teeth with class II cavities restored by both direct composite restorations and endodontic post systems

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2008)
  • M. Gomez-Polo et al.

    A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2010)
  • N. Mohammadi et al.

    Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin

    Journal of Endodontics

    (2009)
  • E.A. Bonfante et al.

    Failure modes of Y-TZP crowns at different cusp inclines

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2010)
  • J.A. Sorensen et al.

    Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth

    Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

    (1984)
  • M.P. Alves dos Santos et al.

    Randomised trial of resin-based restorations in Class I and Class II beveled preparations in primary molars: 48-month results

    Journal of Dentistry

    (2010)
  • E.K. Hansen et al.

    In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with enamel-bonded resin

    Endodontic Dental Traumatology

    (1990)
  • E.K. Hansen et al.

    In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam

    Endodontic Dental Traumatology

    (1990)
  • F. Mannocci et al.

    Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results

    Operative Dentistry

    (2005)
  • Cited by (57)

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text