Full text
| |
| Author(s): |
Paulo Henrique Perlatti D'Alpino
Total Authors: 1
|
| Document type: | Master's Dissertation |
| Press: | Bauru. |
| Institution: | Universidade de São Paulo (USP). Faculdade de Odontologia de Bauru (FOB/SDB) |
| Defense date: | 2000-12-21 |
| Examining board members: |
Carlos Eduardo Francischone;
Maria Teresa Atta Alves Bastos;
Jose Henrique Rubo
|
| Advisor: | Carlos Eduardo Francischone |
| Abstract | |
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin and restored with indirect ceramic restorations. Fifty-six maxillary premolar teeth were selected and divided at random into seven groups; Group 1 (control): intact teeth; Group 2: MOD cavity preparations, ½ intercuspal distance, with rounded internal angles, convergent walls, unrestored; Group 3: MOD cavity preparations, ½ intercuspal distance, divergent walls; Group 4: same preparation as group 2, restored with direct composite resin (Single Bond/ Filtek Z250); Group 5: same as group 3, restored with indirect composite resin (Artglass-Kulzer/Single Bond/ Rely X); Group 6: same as group 3, restored with indirect composite resin (Targis-Ivoclar/ Single Bond/ Rely X); Group 7: same as group 3, restored with indirect ceramic restoration (IPS Empress Ivoclar/ Single Bond/Rely X). The specimens were subject to a compressive axial load in a Universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min by means of a steel bar (8 mm in diameter). The mean fracture strength obtained was (kgf): Group 1: 193,93 ± 24,46; Group 2: 108,56 ± 21,39 ; Group 3: 95,43 ± 17,73; Group 4: 147,65 ± 32,63; Group 5: 184,15 ± 56,49; Group 6: 183,81 ± 31,95; Group 7: 181,12 ± 40,49. There were no significant (p< 0.05) differences between intact teeth and teeth restored with indirect restorations. These results suggest that prepared teeth were significantly weaker than control group; teeth restored with direct and indirect composite resins were significantly more resistance to fracture than were similarly prepared but unrestored teeth. Restoring teeth with direct composite restoration increased the fracture resistance in relation to the control group, but was unable to strengthen them compared with unrestored teeth. These results showed that a bonded indirect restoration could be an ideal option for restoring teeth weakened by wide cavity preparation. (AU) | |