English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

The aim of this study was to compare the fatigue resistance of restored teeth with bulk fill composite resin, conventional composite resin with incremental insertion and unprepared sound teeth. Twenty-eight extracted maxillary premolars were selected and divided into 4 groups based on composite resin and insertion technique: control (C), conventional composite resin with incremental insertion (I) and bulk fill composite resin with three (BF3) or single increment (BF1). The restored specimens were submitted to fatigue resistance test with a 5 Hz frequency. An initial application of 5,000 sinusoidal load cycles with a minimum force of 50 N and a maximum force of 200 N was used. Next, were applied stages of 30,000 load cycles with the maximum force increasing gradually: 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200 and 1400 N. The test was concluded when 185,000 load cycles were achieved or the specimen failed. The fatigue resistance data were recorded for comparison, using the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and analyzed by log-rank test at 0.05 significance. Fractures were classified based on the position of the failure - above or below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Statistical analysis of the Kaplan-Meier survival curve and log-rank test showed a significant difference between groups (p=0.001). The fracture analysis demonstrated that only 28.58% of failures were below the CEJ in group C, while for groups I, BF1 and BF3 they were 42.85%, 85.71% and 85.71%, respectively. Teeth restored with composite bulk fill in both techniques present similar fatigue resistance values compared with those restored with a conventional incremental insertion of composite, while the fatigue strength values of unprepared sound teeth were higher. Furthermore, unprepared sound teeth showed a lower percentage of fractures below the CEJ.

In Vitro Fatigue Resistance of Teeth Restored With Bulk Fill versus Conventional Composite Resin