NOTE: To use the advanced features of this site you need javascript turned on.

Home Fracture Resistance
Molar fracture resistance after adhesive restoration with ceramic inlays or resin-based composites
by Bremer BD, Geurtsen W; Am J Dent. 2001; 14(4): 216 - 220.

To determine the fracture resistance of teeth, following treatment with various types of adhesive restorations.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: 50 caries-free, extracted human molars were randomly divided into five groups consisting of 10 molars each. MOD cavities were prepared in 40 molars with a width in the facio-lingual direction of 50% of the intercuspal distances. The cavities were filled with the following materials: CEREC or IPS Empress ceramic inlays, Arabesk or Charisma F resin-based composite (RBC) restorations. The control group consisted of 10 sound, non-restored molars. All 50 teeth were loaded occlusally until fracture using a tensiletesting machine. The statistical analysis included ANOVA, Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, Scheffe test, and boxplots.

RESULTS: There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between the mean values of the sound teeth (2,102 N) and the teeth with the CEREC ceramic inlays (2,139 N To ). However,both groups demonstrated a significant difference (P < 0.05) when compared with the teeth with IPS Empress ceramic inlays (1,459 N) and Arabesk RBC restorations (1459 N). No significant differences were found between the last two groups. Molars restored with Charisma F composite restorations (1,562 N) revealed no significant difference when compared with all other groups including controls (P > 0.05). A stabilization of molars is possible by means of an adhesive restoration in the form of an "internal splintingļæ½? regardless of the restorative material used.