International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2019 ) > List of Articles

Original Article

Comparative Evaluation of the Fracture Strength of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study

Noorjahan Mohammad, Snigdha Pattanaik, Thimma BV Reddy, Dwitha Animireddy, Swetha Ankireddy

Keywords : Calcium hydroxide, Cermet cements, Dental caries, Glass ionomer cements, Miracle mix

Citation Information : Mohammad N, Pattanaik S, Reddy TB, Animireddy D, Ankireddy S. Comparative Evaluation of the Fracture Strength of Pulpotomized Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2019; 12 (1):5-9.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1576

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-09-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Purpose: This study evaluates the fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars restored with amalgam, miracle mix, cermet, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and nanocomposites. Materials and methods: Fifty primary first and second molars were collected for this study. All the teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n = 10). Standard pulpotomy cavities were prepared. Teeth were air dried and the canal orifices were capped with a layer of zinc oxide eugenol. A lining of calcium hydroxide was placed over it. Amalgam, miracle mix, cermet, resin-modified glass ionomer cement, and nanocomposite were placed in groups I, II, III, IV, and V, respectively. All the samples were then subjected to the fracture strength test using the universal testing machine and the results were statistically analyzed. Results: All the groups were compared by the ANOVA one-way test which indicated that there were statistically significant differences among the five groups. Conclusion: Nanocomposites can be considered to be the best restorative material in terms of fracture strength among amalgam, miracle mix, cermet, and resin-modified glass ionomer cement.

PDF Share
  1. Rodd HD, Waterhouse PJ, et al. Pulp therapy for primary molars. Int J Paediatr Dent 1997;7:267–268.
  2. Holan G, Fuks AB, et al. Success rate of formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars restored with stainless steel crown vs amalgam. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:212–216.
  3. Guelmann M, Fair J, et al. Permanent vs temporary restorations after emergency pulpotomies in primary molars. Pediatr Dent 2005 Nov–Dec;27(6):478–481.
  4. American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs. Statement on Dental Amalgam, Revised 2009. Chicago, lll; 2009. Available at: Accessed June 26, 2012.
  5. Holland IS, Walls AW, et al. The longevity of amalgam restorations in deciduous molars. Br Dent J 1986;161(7):255–258. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4805948.
  6. Ram D, Fuks AB, et al. Long-term clinical performance of esthetic primary molar crowns. Pediatr Dent 2003;25:582–584.
  7. Fouad WAM, Eid MH, et al. Restoration of badly decayed second primary molars. J Am Sci 2012;8(4):48–52.
  8. Rezwani-Kaminski T, Kamann W, et al. Secondary caries susceptibility of teeth with long-term performing composite restorations. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29(12):1131–1138.
  9. Francisconi LF, Scaffa PMC, et al. Glass ionomer cements and their role in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(5):364–369. DOI: 10.1590/S1678-77572009000500003.
  10. Wilson AD, and Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry - The glass ionomer cement. Br Dent J 1972;132:133–135. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810.
  11. Williams JA, Billington RW, et al. The comparative strengths of commercial glass-ionomer cements with and without metal additions. Br Dent J 1992;172:279–282. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4807843.
  12. Nagar Raja U, and Kishore P. Glass ionomer cement – The different generations. Trends Biomater Artif-Organs 2005;18(2):158–165.
  13. Pranav K, Hiral K, et al. To Assess the Influence of Composite Restorative Systems and Fibre Reinforced Composite on the Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars with Class II Mesio-Occlusodistal (MOD) Cavities. Adv Hum Biol 2015;5(1):1–6.
  14. Mahdi S, Bahman S, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of amalgam bonded to primary and permanent dentin. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26:71–73.
  15. Malek Afzali B, Ghassemi A, et al. In vitro investigation of the fracture strength of pulpotomized primary molars restored with glass ionomer, amalgam and composite, with and without cusp reduction. J Dent Sch 2013;31(3):131–137. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.41620.
  16. Bargrizan M, Mirkarimi M, et al. Microleakage and Micrographic Evaluation of Composite Restorations with Various Bases over ZOE Layer in Pulpotomized Primary Molars. J Dent 2011;8(4):178–185.
  17. Welbury RR, Shaw AJ, et al. Clinical evaluation of paired compomer and glass ionomer restorations in primary molars: final results after 42 months. Br Dent J 2000;189(2):93–97. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800693.
  18. Dutta BN, Gauba K, et al. Silver amalgam vs resin modified GIC class II restorations in primary molars: twelve month clinical evaluation. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2001;19(3):118–122.
  19. Kiran KV, Tatikonda A, et al. In Vitro Evaluation of the Compressive Strength of Microhybrid and Nanocomposites. OHDM, 2014 Dec;13(4):1171–1173.
  20. Rosin M, Urban AD, et al. Polymerization shrinkage-strain and microleakage in dentinbordered cavities of chemically and lightcured restorative materials. Dent Mater 2002;18:521–528. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00078-1.
  21. Carlsson GE. Bite force and chewing efficiency. Kawamura Y, ed. Fronti in Oral Physio of Masticat 1974; p. 265–E.
  22. Rentes AM, Gavião MB, et al. Bite force determination in children with primary dentition. J Oral Rehabil 2002 Dec;29(12):1174–1180. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00957.x.
  23. Maki K, Nishioka T, et al. A study on the measurement of occlusal force and masticatory efficiency in school age Japanese children. Int J Paediatr Dent 2001 Jul;11(4):281–285. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365- 263X.2001.00298.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.