Citation Information :
Atalay C, Yazici AR, Horuztepe AS, Nagas E. The Effect of Endodontic Treatment and Thermocycling on Cuspal Deflection of Teeth Restored with Different Direct Resin Composites. Cons Dent Endod J 2021; 6 (2):38-44.
Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the cuspal deflection of endodontically treated human premolars restored with different types of resin composites.
Materials and methods: Forty-eight intact human upper premolars were selected, and standardized mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared and randomly divided into four experimental groups according to different direct restorative materials as follows (n = 12): Group I: Filtek Bulk Fill; Group II: SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram X Mono; Group III: GCeverX posterior + G-aenial posterior; and Group IV: Tetric N-Ceram. After storage in distilled water for 24 h at 37°C, specimens were subjected to thermocycling (5–55°C, ×1000). The cuspal deflection measurements were performed in microns at “after preparation”, “after endodontic treatment”, “24 h after restoration”, and “after thermocycling”. Data were statistically analyzed using Friedman and Kruskal Wallis tests (α = 0.05).
Results: There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of cuspal deflection either after 24 hours or after thermocycling measurements (p >0.05). When comparing 24 hour and thermocycling cuspal deflection values within each restorative material group, none of the materials showed a significant difference (p >0.05). While no significant difference was detected between “after endodontic treatment” and “24 h after restoration” for each group (p >0.05), the difference between “after endodontic treatment” and “after thermocycling” cuspal deflection values increased statistically significantly for group II and group III (p <0.05).
Conclusion: Endodontic treatment did not affect the cuspal movement of the upper premolars. Twenty-four hours after the restoration procedure and thermocycling procedure made no significant difference in the tested conventional/bulk-fill/bulk-fill flowable/fiber-reinforced resin composites’ cuspal deflection.
Lee MR, Cho BH, Son HH, et al. Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restoration. Dent Mater 2007;23(3):288–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.025.
Bucuta S, Ilie N. Light transmittance and micro-mechanical properties of bulk fill vs. conventional resin based composites. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(8):1991–2000. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1177-y.
Ilie N, Bucuta S, Draenert M. Bulk-fill resin-based composites: an in vitro assessment of their mechanical performance. Oper Dent 2013;38(6):618–625. DOI: 10.2341/12-395-L.
Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Watts DC, et al. Polymerization shrinkage of experimental short glass fiber-reinforced composite with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 2008;24(2):211–215. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.001.
Garoushi S, Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, et al. Load bearing capacity of fibre-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. J Dent 2006;34(3):179–184. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.05.010.
Manual EPT. GC R&D Department: Tokyo, Japan; 2012.
Cerutti A, Flocchini P, Madini L, et al. Effects of bonded composites vs. amalgam on resistance to cuspal deflection for endodontically-treated premolar teeth. Am J Dent 2004;17(4):295–300. PMID: 15478495.
Alomari QD, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB. Effect of liners on cusp deflection and gap formation in composite restorations. Oper Dent 2001;26(4):406–411. PMID: 11504442.
Behery H, El-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, et al. Cuspal Deflection of Premolars Restored with Bulk-Fill Composite Resins. J Esthet Restor Dent 2016;28(2):122–130. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12188.
da Rocha DM, Tribst JPM, Ausiello P, et al. Effect of the restorative technique on load-bearing capacity, cusp deflection, and stress distribution of endodontically-treated premolars with MOD restoration. Restor Dent Endod 2019;44(3):e33. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2019.44.e33.
Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, et al. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater 2009;25(5):649–654. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.11.010.
Nitta K, Nomoto R, Tsubota Y, et al. Characteristics of low polymerization shrinkage flowable resin composites in newly-developed cavity base materials for bulk filling technique. Dent Mater J 2017;36(6):740–746. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-394.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR technology. Dent Mater 2011;27(4): 348–355. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.11.014.
Dentsply RG. Ceram X Nanoceramic Restorative. Dentsply: Konstanz, Germany; 2003.
Sampaio CS, Chiu KJ, Farrokhmanesh E, et al. Microcomputed tomography evaluation of polymerization shrinkage of class I flowable resin composite restorations. Oper Dent 2017;42(1):E16–E23. DOI: 10.2341/15-296-L.
Shimatani Y, Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, et al. Simulated cuspal deflection and flexural properties of bulk-fill and conventional flowable resin composites. Oper Dent 2020;45(5):537–546. DOI: 10.2341/18-160-L.
Politi I, McHugh LEJ, Al-Fodeh RS, et al. Modification of the restoration protocol for resin-based composite (RBC) restoratives (conventional and bulk fill) on cuspal movement and microleakage score in molar teeth. Dent Mater 2018;34(9):1271–1277. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2018.05.010.
McHugh LEJ, Politi I, Al-Fodeh RS, et al. Implications of resin-based composite (RBC) restoration on cuspal deflection and microleakage score in molar teeth: Placement protocol and restorative material. Dent Mater 2017;33(9):e329–e335. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental. 2017.06.001.
Prager M, Pierce M, Atria PJ, et al. Assessment of cuspal deflection and volumetric shrinkage of different bulk fill composites using non-contact phase microscopy and micro-computed tomography. Dent Mater J 2018;37(3):393–399. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-136.
Chandrasekhar V, Rudrapati L, Badami V, et al. Incremental techniques in direct composite restoration. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(6):386–391. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_157_16.
Soares CJ, Faria-E-Silva AL, Rodrigues MP, et al. Polymerization shrinkage stress of composite resins and resin cements-what do we need to know? Braz Oral Res 2017;31(suppl 1):e62. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2017.vol31.0062.
Tsujimoto A, Nagura Y, Barkmeier WW, et al. Simulated cuspal deflection and flexural properties of high viscosity bulk-fill and conventional resin composites. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2018;87:111–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2018.07.013.
Yarmohammadi E, Kasraei S, Sadeghi Y. Comparative assessment of cuspal deflection in premolars restored with bulk-fill and conventional composite resins. Front Dent 2019;16(6):407–414. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v16i6.3439.
Elsharkasi MM, Platt JA, Cook NB, et al. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill resin-based composite materials. Oper Dent 2018;43(1):E1–E9. DOI: 10.2341/16-072-L.
Ozsevik AS, Yildirim C, Aydin U, et al. Effect of fibre-reinforced composite on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Aust Endod J 2016;42(2):82–87. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12136.
Yasa B, Arslan H, Yasa E, et al. Effect of novel restorative materials and retention slots on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth. Acta Odontol Scand 2016;74(2):96–102. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2015.1046914.
Atalay C, Yazici AR, Horuztepe A, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, and conventional resin composite. Oper Dent 2016;41(5):E131–E40. DOI: 10.2341/15-320-L.