Effect of Conventional Filler, Short Fiber-reinforced, and Polyethylene Woven Fiber-reinforced Composite on the Fracture Toughness of Extracted Premolar Teeth
Year: 2025
Type: article
Abstract: Aim: To compare the fracture strength of severely weakened endodontically treated premolars restored with conventional filler composite (CFC), short fiber-reinforced composite (SRFC), and polyethylene woven fiber-reinforced composite (PWFRC).Materials and methods: Forty extracted maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and randomly allocated into four groups (n = 11): Group I as SRFC, group II as SRFC + CFC, group III as CFC, group IV as PWFRC + CFC.The palatal cusp was removed, and the buccal wall was preserved at a specific thickness.For groups I, II, and III, the palatal canals were instrumented using a #5 Gates Glidden drill to create cavities measuring 3 mm in depth and 1.5 mm in diameter.In group I, SRFC restoration was performed, whereas in group II, SRFC was placed with the help of a polycarbonate tube, and the coronal restoration was done with the CFC.In group III, restoration of the deep and coronal sections was carried out using CFC.In group IV, a cavity was prepared in the palatal canal with #3 Gates Glidden Drill up to 10 mm depth.PWFRC was placed into the post space, and the coronal part was restored using CFC.A universal testing machine was used to assess the fracture load for each group.The results were analyzed using a One-Way ANOVA, Post Hoc Tukey test, and the Chi-square test.Results: The fracture resistance was compared using a one-way ANOVA test and was found to be significant among all groups, with maximum in group I, followed by group II, then group IV, and least in group III.The Mean (SD) fracture resistance in group I: SRFC was 770.11 (6.08), which was significantly higher than compared of group II: SRFC + CFC was 745.14 (7.40), followed by group IV: PWFRC + CFC, that was 725.00 (9.67) and least in group III: CFC was 696.34 (9.55).The intergroup fracture resistance using Post Hoc Tukey (pair-wise) comparison was statistically significant in all groups, showing values of 0.000.When the comparison was done using the Chi-square test on restorable and non-restorable teeth, it failed to reach the level of significance.Conclusion: Endodontically treated posterior teeth are more prone to fracture due to an undue amount of tooth structure loss, so restoring them with an appropriate final restoration is necessary to prevent them.The SFRC was found to have a better fracture resistance in restoring weakened ETT premolar teeth than conventional composite or PWFRC.It could protect unrepairable fractures, although it was not statistically significant.Clinical significance: A difference was observed in fracture resistance of the endodontically treated maxillary premolars when glass and/or polyethylene fibers were present in composite restorations, which may help clinicians to opt for better restoration of compromised teeth in their routine practice.
Authors: Leeza Bharati, Chandrakar Chaman, Udai P Singh, Asib Ahmad, Siddharth Anand, Aparna Singh
Institution: Kothiwal Dental College and Research Centre
Language: English
Subfield: Orthodontics
Field: Dentistry
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: diamond
OpenAlex ID: W4414376325