Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Article . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
addClaim

COMPARISON OF FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF POSTERIOR TEETH RESTORED WITH DUAL CURE FLOWABLE COMPOSITE RESIN, ZIRCONOMER AND UNIVERSAL COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIAL: AN IN-VITRO STUDY

Authors: Dr. Vishal Mahajan, Dr. Priti Mahale, Dr. Rasik Bagde, Dr. Pranali Satpute;

COMPARISON OF FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF POSTERIOR TEETH RESTORED WITH DUAL CURE FLOWABLE COMPOSITE RESIN, ZIRCONOMER AND UNIVERSAL COMPOSITE RESTORATIVE MATERIAL: AN IN-VITRO STUDY

Abstract

Dental caries remains one of the most prevalent oral diseases worldwide and frequently results in extensive loss of tooth structure requiring restorative treatment.¹ Restoration of posterior teeth with extensive mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity preparations presents a significant challenge in restorative dentistry because such preparations considerably weaken the remaining tooth structure.²˒³ The fracture resistance of a tooth is greatly influenced by the amount of remaining sound tooth structure. Loss of marginal ridges and supporting dentin during cavity preparation results in increased cuspal deflection, reduced stiffness, and greater susceptibility to fracture under occlusal loading.³˒⁴ Previous studies have shown that MOD cavity preparations significantly reduce the fracture strength and rigidity of posterior teeth.³˒⁴ Posterior teeth are continuously subjected to compressive, tensile, shear, and torsional forces during mastication. Therefore, restorative materials used in stress-bearing posterior regions should possess adequate mechanical properties, fracture toughness, and resistance to functional loading.²˒⁵ Premolars are considered more susceptible to fracture because of their anatomical morphology and steep cuspal inclinations. Their position in the dental arch subjects them to considerable occlusal stresses during mastication, making them suitable for in vitro fracture resistance studies.⁵˒⁶

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!