These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Evaluation of the fracture resistance of reattached incisal fragments using different materials and techniques.
    Author: Chazine M, Sedda M, Ounsi HF, Paragliola R, Ferrari M, Grandini S.
    Journal: Dent Traumatol; 2011 Feb; 27(1):15-8. PubMed ID: 21244624.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: When coronal fracture occurs in anterior teeth, fragment reattachment can be a valid alternative to a direct restoration. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the material and the technique used to reattach the fragment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty sound maxillary and mandibular incisors were selected and randomly divided into eight groups (n = 10). The incisal third of each tooth was removed using a saw machine. The fragments in groups 1-4 were reattached using resin-based materials: group 1 adhesive, group 2 flow, group 3 composite, group 4 cement; in groups 5-8, the same materials mentioned before were used but a bevel was also performed on both labial and lingual surfaces. Shear bond strength (SBS) was calculated by applying a load incisal to the reattachment line. A two-way Anova was used to evaluate the influence of materials and techniques on the SBS. RESULTS: The technique used was statistically significant (P < 0.001), while the material was not (P = 0.793). CONCLUSIONS: The choice of material seems to have no influence on the SBS, whereas a bevel performed on the labial and lingual surfaces can significantly improve the SBS of the reattached fragment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]