Influence of polymerisation method and type of fibre on fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate (i) the effect of direct or indirect polymerisation of adhesive-impregnated ribbon fibre under 4-mm bulk-filled composites on fracture strength; (ii) to compare polyethylene ribbon fibre-reinforcement composites with short fibre-reinforced composite; and (iii) the effectiveness of polyethylene ribbon fibre according to the restorative materials used (low-viscous bulk-fill composite, high-viscous flowable composite or conventional paste composite). Seventy molars were divided into seven groups; (groups 1–2) Ribbond-reinforced Surefil-SDR; (group 3) Ribbond-reinforced G Aenial Flo; (group 4) Ribbond-reinforced G Aenial Posterior; (group 5) short fibre-reinforced composite everX Posterior; (group 6) unfilled cavity; (group 7) intact teeth. Ribbond was adopted to cavity walls by impregnating an adhesive and using a flowable composite. In group 1, adhesive-impregnated Ribbond was polymerised directly using a light-curing-unit, and indirectly in group 2 under 4-mm bulk-filled composite. Direct or indirect polymerisation of adhesive impregnated ribbon fibre under 4-mm bulk-filled composite did not change the fracture strength results. Polyethylene ribbon fibre-reinforced groups (groups 1–4) and short fibre-reinforced composite group (group 5) displayed similar results. Polyethylene ribbon fibre can be used safely under 4-mm bulk-filled composites. Ribbond-reinforced low-viscous bulk-fill, high-viscous flowable, and conventional paste composite exhibited similar fracture strength results.

    loading  Loading Related Articles