A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth

The purpose of this study was to test the support to undermined occlusal enamel provided by posterior restorative composite (FiltekTM P60, 3M Dental products USA), polyacid modified resin composite (F2000 compomer, 3M Dental products, USA.), radiopaque silver alloy-glass ionomer cement (Miracle Mix....

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Prabhakar A, Thejokrishna P, Kurthukoti A
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2006-09-01
Series:Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2006;volume=24;issue=3;spage=122;epage=126;aulast=Prabhakar
id doaj-21b665b0327748b6bc8b939b3f48ccb3
record_format Article
spelling doaj-21b665b0327748b6bc8b939b3f48ccb32020-11-24T22:58:16ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsJournal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry0970-43882006-09-01243122126A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teethPrabhakar AThejokrishna PKurthukoti AThe purpose of this study was to test the support to undermined occlusal enamel provided by posterior restorative composite (FiltekTM P60, 3M Dental products USA), polyacid modified resin composite (F2000 compomer, 3M Dental products, USA.), radiopaque silver alloy-glass ionomer cement (Miracle Mix. GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan) and Glass Ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP). To test each material, 20 human permanent mandibular third molars were selected. The lingual cusps were removed and the dentin supporting the facial cusps was cut away, leaving a shell of enamel. Each group of prepared teeth was restored using the materials according to the manufacturer′s instructions. All the specimens were thermocycled (250 cycles, 6°C- 60°C, dwell time 30 seconds) and then mounted on an acrylic base. Specimens were loaded evenly across the cusp tips at a crosshead speed of 5 mm /minute in Hounsfield universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Data obtained was analyzed using analysis of variance and Studentized- Newman- Keul′s range test. No significant differences were detected in the support provided by P-60, F 2000, Miracle Mix or Fuji IX GP groups. The support provided to undermined occlusal enamel by these materials was intermediate between no support and that provided by sound dentin. Without further development in dental material technology and evidence of its efficacy, restorative materials should not be relied upon to support undermined occlusal enamel to a level comparable to that provided by sound dentin.http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2006;volume=24;issue=3;spage=122;epage=126;aulast=PrabhakarBondingcarious dentinocclusionreinforcementundermined enamel
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Prabhakar A
Thejokrishna P
Kurthukoti A
spellingShingle Prabhakar A
Thejokrishna P
Kurthukoti A
A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
Bonding
carious dentin
occlusion
reinforcement
undermined enamel
author_facet Prabhakar A
Thejokrishna P
Kurthukoti A
author_sort Prabhakar A
title A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
title_short A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
title_full A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
title_sort comparative evaluation of four restorative materials to support undermined occlusal enamel of permanent teeth
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
issn 0970-4388
publishDate 2006-09-01
description The purpose of this study was to test the support to undermined occlusal enamel provided by posterior restorative composite (FiltekTM P60, 3M Dental products USA), polyacid modified resin composite (F2000 compomer, 3M Dental products, USA.), radiopaque silver alloy-glass ionomer cement (Miracle Mix. GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan) and Glass Ionomer cement (Fuji IX GP). To test each material, 20 human permanent mandibular third molars were selected. The lingual cusps were removed and the dentin supporting the facial cusps was cut away, leaving a shell of enamel. Each group of prepared teeth was restored using the materials according to the manufacturer′s instructions. All the specimens were thermocycled (250 cycles, 6°C- 60°C, dwell time 30 seconds) and then mounted on an acrylic base. Specimens were loaded evenly across the cusp tips at a crosshead speed of 5 mm /minute in Hounsfield universal testing machine until fracture occurred. Data obtained was analyzed using analysis of variance and Studentized- Newman- Keul′s range test. No significant differences were detected in the support provided by P-60, F 2000, Miracle Mix or Fuji IX GP groups. The support provided to undermined occlusal enamel by these materials was intermediate between no support and that provided by sound dentin. Without further development in dental material technology and evidence of its efficacy, restorative materials should not be relied upon to support undermined occlusal enamel to a level comparable to that provided by sound dentin.
topic Bonding
carious dentin
occlusion
reinforcement
undermined enamel
url http://www.jisppd.com/article.asp?issn=0970-4388;year=2006;volume=24;issue=3;spage=122;epage=126;aulast=Prabhakar
work_keys_str_mv AT prabhakara acomparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
AT thejokrishnap acomparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
AT kurthukotia acomparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
AT prabhakara comparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
AT thejokrishnap comparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
AT kurthukotia comparativeevaluationoffourrestorativematerialstosupportunderminedocclusalenamelofpermanentteeth
_version_ 1725647709586587648