Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials

Pooja Misar; Hemalatha Hiremath; Chhaya Harinkhere; Shailendra S Sonawane; Vinay Sharma; Kuldeep Singh Rana

Reinforcing an immature tooth model using three different restorative materials

Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2022 Mar 21:19:28. eCollection 2022.

Authors

Pooja Misar¹, Hemalatha Hiremath², Chhaya Harinkhere³, Shailendra S Sonawane¹, Vinay Sharma¹, Kuldeep Singh Rana⁴

Affiliations

¹ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SMBT Dental College, Nashik, India.
² Professor and Head, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, College of Dental Science and Hospital, Rau, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
³ Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Aurbindo College of Dental Science, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.
⁴ Government College of Dentistry, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India.

PMID: 35432792
PMCID: PMC9006159

Abstract

Background: To compare and evaluate the strength rendering capacity of three restorative materials in tooth model simulated as immature teeth.

Materials and methods: In this in vitro study, 80 human maxillary permanent central incisors scheduled for periodontal extraction were collected, and an immature tooth model was prepared using a 3 mm twist drill. To simulate single-visit apical barrier, all the teeth were prepared with peso number 1-6. The teeth were segregated into three experimental and a control group. The experimental groups (n = 20) comprised of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), Biodentine, and glass ionomer cement. The fracture resistance of all the teeth was tested using universal testing machine. The final reading of the applied load to cause fracture was noted and later was subjected to statistical analysis, P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant, and the level of significance was fixed at 5%. Student's t-test was applied to compare values among experimental groups.

Results: There was a significant difference in the values of peak load resulting in fracture among experimental groups which was observed statistically (P ≤ 0.001). FRC exhibited superior reinforcing capacity (mean: 1199.7 N) among the experimental materials followed by Biodentine and Bioglass R. The lowest value to fracture was observed in control group (mean: 236.7 N).

Conclusion: The results indicate that FRC could substantially contribute positively in reinforcing the simulated thin-walled immature roots.

Keywords: Biodentine; glass ionomer cement; reinforced composite.