Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials

Ankita Sharma, Subhashish Das, Manuel S. Thomas, Kishore Ginjupalli

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement (Cention N), composite resin, and glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and Methods: Fifty freshly extracted mandibular and maxillary premolars with typical morphology were selected and mounted on acrylic cylinders. Five groups were made with ten teeth in each group as follows: Group A: intact teeth with no restoration (control); Group B: unfilled teeth with prepared mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity; Group C: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with nanohybrid composite; Group D: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with type IX GIC; and Group E: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with Cention N. Root canal treatment was done for groups B, C, D, and E after MOD cavity and before placement of the coronal filling. The specimens were mounted on a universal testing machine, and load was applied until the specimen fractured. The values were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean value of fracture resistance was highest in Group A (2015 N) followed by Group C (1504 N) and Group E (1319 N). Groups D and B showed the lowest reading. However, there was no statistical difference between Groups C and E. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that composite is the material of choice for restorations in endodontically treated tooth. Alkasite cement can be used as an alternative to composite resin due to ease of manipulation.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)205-209
Number of pages5
JournalSaudi Endodontic Journal
Volume9
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01-09-2019

Fingerprint

Bicuspid
Tooth
Glass Ionomer Cements
Composite Resins
Nonvital Tooth
Dental Pulp Cavity
Reading

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

@article{f3c3753dac164792a72e97afc686fcda,
title = "Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials",
abstract = "Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement (Cention N), composite resin, and glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and Methods: Fifty freshly extracted mandibular and maxillary premolars with typical morphology were selected and mounted on acrylic cylinders. Five groups were made with ten teeth in each group as follows: Group A: intact teeth with no restoration (control); Group B: unfilled teeth with prepared mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity; Group C: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with nanohybrid composite; Group D: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with type IX GIC; and Group E: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with Cention N. Root canal treatment was done for groups B, C, D, and E after MOD cavity and before placement of the coronal filling. The specimens were mounted on a universal testing machine, and load was applied until the specimen fractured. The values were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean value of fracture resistance was highest in Group A (2015 N) followed by Group C (1504 N) and Group E (1319 N). Groups D and B showed the lowest reading. However, there was no statistical difference between Groups C and E. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that composite is the material of choice for restorations in endodontically treated tooth. Alkasite cement can be used as an alternative to composite resin due to ease of manipulation.",
author = "Ankita Sharma and Subhashish Das and Thomas, {Manuel S.} and Kishore Ginjupalli",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
day = "1",
doi = "10.4103/sej.sej-94-18",
language = "English",
volume = "9",
pages = "205--209",
journal = "Saudi Endodontic Journal",
issn = "2278-9618",
publisher = "Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd",
number = "3",

}

Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials. / Sharma, Ankita; Das, Subhashish; Thomas, Manuel S.; Ginjupalli, Kishore.

In: Saudi Endodontic Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, 01.09.2019, p. 205-209.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement compared to various core build-up materials

AU - Sharma, Ankita

AU - Das, Subhashish

AU - Thomas, Manuel S.

AU - Ginjupalli, Kishore

PY - 2019/9/1

Y1 - 2019/9/1

N2 - Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement (Cention N), composite resin, and glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and Methods: Fifty freshly extracted mandibular and maxillary premolars with typical morphology were selected and mounted on acrylic cylinders. Five groups were made with ten teeth in each group as follows: Group A: intact teeth with no restoration (control); Group B: unfilled teeth with prepared mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity; Group C: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with nanohybrid composite; Group D: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with type IX GIC; and Group E: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with Cention N. Root canal treatment was done for groups B, C, D, and E after MOD cavity and before placement of the coronal filling. The specimens were mounted on a universal testing machine, and load was applied until the specimen fractured. The values were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean value of fracture resistance was highest in Group A (2015 N) followed by Group C (1504 N) and Group E (1319 N). Groups D and B showed the lowest reading. However, there was no statistical difference between Groups C and E. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that composite is the material of choice for restorations in endodontically treated tooth. Alkasite cement can be used as an alternative to composite resin due to ease of manipulation.

AB - Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored by alkasite cement (Cention N), composite resin, and glass ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and Methods: Fifty freshly extracted mandibular and maxillary premolars with typical morphology were selected and mounted on acrylic cylinders. Five groups were made with ten teeth in each group as follows: Group A: intact teeth with no restoration (control); Group B: unfilled teeth with prepared mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity; Group C: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with nanohybrid composite; Group D: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with type IX GIC; and Group E: Teeth with MOD cavity restored with Cention N. Root canal treatment was done for groups B, C, D, and E after MOD cavity and before placement of the coronal filling. The specimens were mounted on a universal testing machine, and load was applied until the specimen fractured. The values were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The mean value of fracture resistance was highest in Group A (2015 N) followed by Group C (1504 N) and Group E (1319 N). Groups D and B showed the lowest reading. However, there was no statistical difference between Groups C and E. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that composite is the material of choice for restorations in endodontically treated tooth. Alkasite cement can be used as an alternative to composite resin due to ease of manipulation.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071327378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85071327378&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.4103/sej.sej-94-18

DO - 10.4103/sej.sej-94-18

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 205

EP - 209

JO - Saudi Endodontic Journal

JF - Saudi Endodontic Journal

SN - 2278-9618

IS - 3

ER -