It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
Minimally invasive access cavities have been proposed in the last decade to reduce tooth tissue loss during endodontic treatment and mitigate compromised fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Fracture resistance of molars with different types of access cavity design may be affected by restorative materials and aging. Insufficient literature data exist on the effect of cavity design and type of restorative materials on restorative aspects such as material adaptation or photo-polymerization in restricted access cavities. This study analyses quality of polymerization, material adaptation and fracture resistance of molars with different types of access cavities restored with glass-ionomer, high-viscosity fiber-reinforced bulk-fill and nanofilled resin composite. Plastic molar teeth with truss (TREC) and traditional endodontic access cavity (TEC) were restored with nanofilled composite (Filtek Supreme), glass-ionomer Fuji IX and Filtek or fiber-reinforced everX Posterior and Filtek. Porosity was determined using microcomputer tomography and the degree of conversion of resin-based materals using micro-Raman spectroscopy. Human molars prepared and restored in the same way were used for fracture resistance testing at baseline and after thermocycling. The results demonstrate that high-viscosity fiber-reinforced composite was difficult to adapt in TREC cavity leading to greater porosity than Filtek or Fuji. TREC design did not affect composite polymerization and led to higher fracture resistance of restored molars compared to TEC but also more unrestorable fractures.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details
1 University of Belgrade, School of Dental Medicine, Department for Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rankeova 4, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)
2 Innovation Centre of Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b)
3 University of Belgrade, School of Dental Medicine, Department for Medical Statistics and Informatics, Dr Subotica 8, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)
4 University of Belgrade, Faculty of Physical Chemistry, Studentski trg 12-16, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)
5 University of Belgrade, Center of Bone Biology, Institute of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Belgrade, Serbia (GRID:grid.7149.b) (ISNI:0000 0001 2166 9385)
6 The University of Sydney, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney Dental School, 2 Chalmers Street, Surry Hills NSW, Australia (GRID:grid.1013.3) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 834X)