Objective This study aimed to evaluate the fracture strength of teeth restored using fiber-reinforced direct restorative materials after endodontic treatment with a conservative mesio-occlusal access cavity design. Materials and methods A total of 100 extracted intact mandibular first molars were selected and distributed into a positive control group where teeth left intact and the following four test groups comprised of teeth with conservative mesio-occlusal access cavities that had undergone root canal treatment ( n = 20/group): access cavity without restoration (negative control), bulk-fill resin composite with horizontal glass fiber post reinforcement, fiber-reinforced composite with bulk-fill resin and bulk-fill resin composite. Following thermocycling (10,000 cycles), fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine. Statistical analyses (one-way analysis of variance and the Tamhane test) were performed, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Results Groups with minimally invasive access cavities had lower fracture strength than intact teeth, regardless of the restoration material ( p < 0.05). Fiber-reinforced composite groups demonstrated higher fracture strength than bulk-fill resin composite alone ( p < 0.05). Fracture types varied among groups, with restorable fractures predominant in the fiber-reinforced composite groups. Conclusion This study suggests that using fiber-reinforced composite materials, especially in combination with bulk-fill resin composites, can effectively enhance the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with conservative access cavities. However, using only bulk-fill resin composite is not recommended based on the fracture strength results. Clinical significance When teeth that undergo endodontic treatment are restored using a conservative access cavity design and fiber-reinforced composite materials, especially in combination with bulk-fill resin composites, the fracture strength of the teeth can be effectively increased.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Nezir et al. (2024) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: