Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of fiber-composite laminate, a reinforcement ribbon embedded throughout a composite restoration, to reinforce immature maxillary central incisors. Twenty-six mature maxillary central incisors were prepared a minimum of 3 mm below the facial cementoenamel junction to simulate immature nonvital teeth. They were separated into 3 groups: group 1 was unfilled and served as a control; group 2 was filled to the depth of the preparation with composite; and group 3 was filled with composite and Connect Reinforcement Ribbon. The specimens were subjected to class I loading in an Instron Testing Machine until catastrophic failure occurred. The results indicate a highly significant difference between the groups (p < or = 0.003). Group 1 fractured at an average load of 31.08 kg, group 2 at 51.00 kg, and group 3 at 37.93 kg. These findings suggest that composite alone increases fracture resistance of the immature tooth model more than composite with Reinforcement Ribbon.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
PENE et al. (2001) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: