International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-April, 2015 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of the Load-bearing Capacity of Fractured Incisal Edge of Maxillary Permanent Central Incisors restored with a Glass Fiber-reinforced Nanocomposite: An in vitro Study

PS Praveen Kumar, KT Srilatha, B Nandlal, Kanika Singh Dhull

Keywords : Glass fiber-reinforced composite, Nanocomposite, Self-etching adhesive, Fracture resistance, Incisal edge fracture

Citation Information : Kumar PP, Srilatha K, Nandlal B, Dhull KS. Evaluation of the Load-bearing Capacity of Fractured Incisal Edge of Maxillary Permanent Central Incisors restored with a Glass Fiber-reinforced Nanocomposite: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015; 8 (1):22-29.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1278

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).


Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the load-bearing capacity of fractured incisal edge of maxillary permanent central incisors restored with a nanocomposite and a glass fiber-reinforced nanocomposite. Materials and methods: Thirty-six extracted sound maxillary central incisors randomly divided in three groups were used for the present study. Group I (control) contained untreated teeth. Samples in experimental groups II and III were prepared by cutting the incisal (one-third) part of the crown horizontally and subjected to enamel preparations and restored with a nanocomposite and a glass fiber-reinforced nanocomposite respectively. All restored teeth were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours. Fracture resistance was evaluated as peak load at failure (Newton) for samples tested in a cantilever-bending test using Hounsfield universal testing machine. Failure modes were microscopically examined. Results: Highest mean peak failure load (Newton) among experimental groups was observed in glass fiber-reinforced nanocomposite group (863.50 ± 76.12 N) followed by nanocomposite group (633.67 ± 40.14 N). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed that the restoration technique significantly affected the load-bearing capacity (p < 0.001). Scheffe's post-hoc comparison test (subset for α = 0.05) revealed that there was significant difference in the mean peak failure load values of nanocomposite and glass fiber-reinforced nanocomposite groups when considered together (p < 0.001). Experimental groups showed similar types of failure modes with majority occurring as cohesive and mixed type. Fifty-eight percent of the teeth in glass fiber-reinforced nanocomposite group fractured below the cementoenamel junction. Conclusion: By using fiber-reinforced composite substructure under conventional composites in the repair of fractured incisors, the load-bearing capacity of the restored incisal edge could be substantially increased. How to cite this article: Kumar PSP, Srilatha KT, Nandlal B, Dhull KS. Evaluation of the Load-bearing Capacity of Fractured Incisal Edge of Maxillary Permanent Central Incisors restored with a Glass Fiber-reinforced Nanocomposite: An in vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(1):22-29.

PDF Share
  1. Garoushi SK, Ballo AM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Fracture resistance of fragmented incisal edges restored with fiber- reinforced composite. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(2):91-95.
  2. Gandhi K, Nandlal B. Effect of enamel preparations on fracture resistance of composite resin buildup of fractures involving dentine in anterior bovine teeth: an in vitro study. J Ind Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2006 June 24(2):69-75.
  3. Staffanou RS. Restoration of fractured incisal angles. JADA 1972;84(1):146-150.
  4. Garoushi S, Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK. Load bearing capacity of fibre-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. J Dent 2006;34(3):179-184.
  5. Titley KC, Chernecky R, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. The effect of various storage methods and media on shear bond strengths of dental composite resin to bovine dentine. Arch Oral Biol 1998;43(4):305-311.
  6. Hu YH, Pang C, Hsu CC, Lau YH. Fracture resistance of endodontically restored with four post and core systems. Quintessence Int 2003;34(5):349-353.
  7. Tjan AHL, Dr Dent, Whang SB. Resistence to root fracture of dowel channels with various thickness of buccal dentine walls. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(4):496-500.
  8. Jordan RE, Suzuki M, Gwinnett AJ, Hunter JK. Restoration of fractured and hypoplastic incisors by the acid etch technique: a three year report. JADA 1977;95(4):795-803.
  9. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34(6):849-853.
  10. O'Neil DW, Clark MV, Lowe JW, Harrington MS. Oral trauma in children: a hospital survey. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1989;68(6):691-696.
  11. Zerman N, Cavalleri G. Traumatic injuries to permanent incisors. Endod Dent Traumatol 1993;9(2):61-64.
  12. Hamilton FA, Hill FJ, Holloway PJ. An investigation of dento-alveolar trauma and its treatment in an adolescent population. Part 1: the prevalence and incidence of injuries and the extent and adequacy of treatment received. Br Dent J 1997;182(3):91-95.
  13. Bastone EB, Freer T, McNamara. Epidemiology of dental trauma: a review of the literature. Aust Dent J 2000;45(1):2-9.
  14. De Munck J, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: Methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84(2):118-132.
  15. Bagheri J, Denehy GE. Effect of enamel bevel and restoration lengths on class IV acid-etch retained composite resin restoration. JADA 1983;107(6):951-952.
  16. Armstrong SR. Restoration of class IV and VI defects in ante- rior teeth with an unfilled resin. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(1):9-12.
  17. Eid H. Retention of composite restorations in class IV preparations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26(3):251-256.
  18. Atash R, Van Den Abbeele A. Bond strengths of eight contem- porary adhesives to enamel and to dentin: an in vitro study on bovine primary teeth. Int J Pediatr Dent 2005;15(4):264-273.
  19. Ceram X. Scientific compendium. Konstanz, Germany: Dentsply DeTrey; 2003.
  20. Martin AF, et al. Fiber-reinforced composites in clinical dentistry. 1st ed: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc; 2000. p. 19.
  21. Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G. A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 1989;17(2):61-67.
  22. Black JB, Retief DH, Lemons JE. Effect of cavity design on retention of Class IV composite resin restorations. JADA 1981; 103(1):43-46.
  23. Eid H, White GE. Class IV preparations for fractured anterior teeth restored with composite resin restorations. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2003;27(3):201-211.
  24. Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J 2005;38(2):73-80.
  25. Garoushi SK, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Fiber-reinforced composite substructure: load-bearing capacity of an onlay restoration. Acta Odontol Scand 2006;64(5):281-285.
  26. Tezvergil A, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Strength of adhesive- bonded fiber-reinforced composites to enamel and dentin substrates. J Adhes Dent 2003;5(4):301-311.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.