• Users Online: 213
  • Print this page
  • Email this page


 
 
Table of Contents
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 5-7

To evaluate the fracture resistance of four core buildup materials: Amalgam, resin composite/dual cure, resin-modified glass ionomer, and SureFil packable composite restorative material under universal testing machine


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, KIMS College and Hospital, Amalapuram, Andhra Pradesh, India
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, HKES S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Sciences & Research, Gulbarga, Karnataka, India
4 Endodontic Consultant, Delhi, India

Date of Submission15-Jan-2020
Date of Acceptance03-Feb-2020
Date of Web Publication20-Mar-2020

Correspondence Address:
Ashwini M Patil
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Ashok Nagar, Raichur 584102, Karnataka.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_1_20

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: The compressive strength and tensile strength of core materials are thought to be important because core usually replaces large bulk of tooth structure and should resist multidirectional masticatory forces for many years. Aims and Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the suitability of packable composite as Nayyar cores in comparison with other materials such as amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer, and dual-cure composite resin. Materials and Methods: A total of 75 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars subjected for the study were stored in distilled water for not more than 4 months before the root canal filling procedure. They were then randomly divided into five groups, each group with 15 teeth. Results: Amalgam showed higher resistance to fracture (1.82kN), and resin composite showed the least resistance to fracture (0.68kN). Resin-modified glass ionomer (0.96kN) and packable composite (0.93kN) showed almost similar fracture resistance. Conclusion: Packable composite can be used as an alternative to amalgam core and resin-modified glass ionomer.

Keywords: Amalgam, fracture resistance, packable composite, resin composite, resin-modified glass ionomer


How to cite this article:
Patil AM, Deshpande S, Ratnakar, Patil V, Surabhi, Reza K M. To evaluate the fracture resistance of four core buildup materials: Amalgam, resin composite/dual cure, resin-modified glass ionomer, and SureFil packable composite restorative material under universal testing machine. Int J Oral Care Res 2020;8:5-7

How to cite this URL:
Patil AM, Deshpande S, Ratnakar, Patil V, Surabhi, Reza K M. To evaluate the fracture resistance of four core buildup materials: Amalgam, resin composite/dual cure, resin-modified glass ionomer, and SureFil packable composite restorative material under universal testing machine. Int J Oral Care Res [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Aug 4];8:5-7. Available from: http://www.ijocr.org/text.asp?2020/8/1/5/281140




  Introduction Top


Core buildup is a restoration that is used to replace missing tooth structure before crown preparation. The compressive strength and tensile strength of core materials are thought to be important because core usually replaces large bulk of tooth structure and should resist multidirectional masticatory forces for many years.[1],[2],[3],[4],[5] These characteristics are necessary because the core buildup must support and protect the residual tooth structure as well as provide adequate retention and resistance form for the final restoration. The success of the final restoration is dependent on the intact tooth structure and positive performance of the underlying core.[6],[7],[8] Core buildup is necessary from the microbiological aspect also, which should be carried out soon after completion of the endodontic treatment to obtain coronal seal and minimize microleakage that could lead to subsequent endodontic failure. Composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cements have been advocated as alternative materials for core buildup instead of amalgam. But both these materials showed less fracture resistance as compared to amalgam when used as corono-radicular restoration. Recently, the use of packable composites in posterior teeth has been evaluated. It was suggested that packable composites might provide good handling properties during composite insertion and adaptation in a manner similar to that of amalgam. However, minimal research is available on fracture resistance of packable composite when used as Nayyar cores.[9],[10],[11],[12] Hence, the aim of this study was to determine the suitability of packable composite as Nayyar core in comparison with other materials such as amalgam, resin-modified glass ionomer, and dual-cure composite resin.


  Materials and Methods Top


This in vitro study was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, HKE’s S. Nijalingappa Institute of Dental Science and Research, Gulbarga, Karnataka, in support with the Department of Textile Engineering, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere, Karnataka. A total of 75 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars subjected for the study were stored in distilled water for not more than 4 months before the root canal filling procedure. They were then randomly divided into five groups, each group with 15 teeth.


Click here to view


Testing: After core buildup, all the teeth were stored in distilled water for 24h before testing. The teeth were then loaded to check failure with a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, New York, USA) using a 4.5-mm-diameter stainless steel rod placed in the midline fissure at crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min. The fracture force needed to fracture to core (kN) was recorded for each sample, and the mode of failure was recorded using a system previously described by Ferrier et al.[6] A score was assigned to each type of failure shown in [Graph 1]. The results were analyzed using Student’s unpaired t test at a 5% level of significance (P = 0.05). A nonparametric Mann–Whitney test was used to interpret the data representing the modes of failure of the different core materials.
Graph 1: The fracture resistance of Nayyar cores of four restorative materials

Click here to view



  Results Top


The mean difference of Group I was found to be significant when compared with Groups II–V; it was found to be very highly significant. The mean difference of Group II was found to be highly significant when compared with Groups III and IV, and with Group V, it was found to be nonsignificant.

The mean difference of Group III was found to be nonsignificant when compared with Group IV, and with Group V, it was found to be very highly significant. The mean difference of Group IV was found to be highly significant when compared with Group V. A value of P < 0.05 was found to be significant [Table 1]. Also, values of the mean fracture strength measured in kilonewton (kN) of five groups are as follows: Resin composite showed least value of 0.68kN, control group showed 0.71kN, packable composites showed 0.93kN, resin-modified glass ionomer showed 0.96kN, and amalgam showed maximum value of 1.86kN. Each group has statistically significant difference when compared with the other group [Graph 1].
Table 1: Intergroup comparisons

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


In this study, 15 teeth were used in each group, because of the potential variability introduced by tooth anatomy, core geometry, and surface finish. In this study, corono-radicular gutta-percha was removed up to 3mm to provide an adequate retention for core material as recommended in the studies conducted by Nayyar et al.[9] and Kane et al.[10] Fracture resistance value of amalgam in this study was calculated to be 1.82kN; however, the results obtained from a study by Burke et al.[11] reported fracture resistance of amalgam to be 2.58kN. Ferrier et al.[6] reported fracture resistance value of composite resin to be 0.75kN and resin-modified glass ionomer to be 1.05kN, and in this study, the value of composite resin was 0.68kN and resin-modified glass ionomer was 0.96kN, which are similar. Similarly, when packable composites were compared to resin composites in terms of fracture resistance, a highly significant difference was found between the two groups with packable composites showing higher fracture resistance than the composite resins. These results are similar to those reported by Cobb et al.[12] Fracture was less severe in packable composite than in composite resin, thus showing statistically significant differences in the mode of fracture between the two groups. On comparison of resin-modified glass ionomer with packable composites, comparable values of fracture resistance and mode of fracture were noticed without any significant difference between the two groups. These results can be explained based on the mechanical properties of resin-modified glass ionomer and show high compressive toughness. Water sorption has been shown to progress through this material rapidly in the first 24h and the mechanical properties of this material mature over a period of 1 month. Resin-modified glass ionomer has been used as an core material alternate to amalgam as core material as suggested by Ferrier et al.[6] On the basis of the results of this study, it can be suggested that packable composite can also be used as an alternate to amalgam and resin-modified glass ionomer.


  Conclusion Top


This study was undertaken to evaluate the fracture resistance of Nayyar cores of four restorative materials.

Within the limitation of this in vitro study, the following conclusion can be drawn:

  • Packable composite can be used as an alternative to amalgam core and resin-modified glass ionomer.


  • Amalgam shows higher resistance to fracture.


  • Resin composite shows least resistance to fracture.


  • Financial support and sponsorship

    Nil.

    Conflicts of interest

    There are no conflicts of interest.



     
      References Top

    1.
    Cho GC1, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN.Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:272-6.  Back to cited text no. 1
        
    2.
    Mahony A, Spencer P. Core build-up materials and techniques. J Irish Dent Assoc 1999; 45:84-90.   Back to cited text no. 2
        
    3.
    Smidt A, Bmed SC, Venezia E, Bmed SC. Techniques for immediate core buildup of endodontically treated teeth. Quintessence Int 2003;34:258-68.  Back to cited text no. 3
        
    4.
    Parker MH, Malone KH 3, Trier AC, Striano TS. Evaluation of resistance form for prepared teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:730-3.  Back to cited text no. 4
        
    5.
    Anusavice KJ. Physical properties of dental materials. In: Phillip’s Science of Dental Materials. Chapter 3. 2003.  Back to cited text no. 5
        
    6.
    Ferrier S, Sekhon BS, Brunton PA. A study of the fracture resistance of Nyyar Cores of Four restorative materials. Oper Dent 2008;33:305-11.  Back to cited text no. 6
        
    7.
    Leinfelder KF, Radz GM, Nash RV. A report on a new condensable resin. Compendium 1998;19:230-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
        
    8.
    Hürmüzlü F, Kiremitçi A, Serper A, Altundaşar E, Siso SH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003;29:838-40.  Back to cited text no. 8
        
    9.
    Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard LA. An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:511-5.  Back to cited text no. 9
        
    10.
    Kane JJ, Burgess JO, Summitt JB. Fracture resistance of amalgam coronal-radicular restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:607-13.  Back to cited text no. 10
        
    11.
    Burke FJ, Shaglouf AG, Combe EC, Wilson NH. Fracture resistance of five pin-retained core build-up materials on teeth with and without extracoronal preparation. Oper Dent 2000;25:388-94.  Back to cited text no. 11
        
    12.
    Cobb DS, MacGregor KM, Vargas MA, Denehy GE. The physical properties of packable and conventional posterior resin-based composites: A comparison. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:1610-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
        


        Figures

      [Graph 1]
     
     
        Tables

      [Table 1], [Table 2]



     

    Top
     
      Search
     
        Similar in PUBMED
       Search Pubmed for
       Search in Google Scholar for
     Related articles
        Access Statistics
        Email Alert *
        Add to My List *
    * Registration required (free)  

     
      In this article
       Abstract
      Introduction
       Materials and Me...
      Results
      Discussion
      Conclusion
       References
       Article Figures
       Article Tables

     Article Access Statistics
        Viewed480    
        Printed61    
        Emailed0    
        PDF Downloaded158    
        Comments [Add]    

    Recommend this journal