z-logo
Premium
Fatigue behavior of dental resin composites: Flexural fatigue in vitro versus 6 years in vivo
Author(s) -
GarciaGodoy Franklin,
Frankenberger Roland,
Lohbauer Ulrich,
Feilzer Albert J.,
Krämer Norbert
Publication year - 2012
Publication title -
journal of biomedical materials research part b: applied biomaterials
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.665
H-Index - 108
eISSN - 1552-4981
pISSN - 1552-4973
DOI - 10.1002/jbm.b.32651
Subject(s) - flexural strength , materials science , composite material , distilled water , epoxy , scanning electron microscope , in vivo , resin composite , composite number , dentistry , chemistry , medicine , microbiology and biotechnology , chromatography , biology
Objectives: To evaluate fatigue behavior of direct resin composite restorations (Tetric Ceram vs. Grandio) in vitro and in vivo over an observation period of 6 years. Methods: For the in vitro part, Young's moduli (YM) were calculated and both initial (FS: flexural strength) and fatigue flexural strength (FFL: flexural fatigue limit) were evaluated in a four‐point bending setup ( n = 15) in distilled water at 37°C. For the in vivo part, 30 patients received 68 direct resin composite restorations of the same materials (Grandio bonded with Solobond M; Tetric Ceram bonded with Syntac). Patients revealed a minimum of two different class II restorations in different quadrants. Epoxy replicas of restored teeth were analyzed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 30× magnification for fatigue characteristics, and 11 selected restorations per group were assessed for marginal fatigue characteristics at 200×. Results: In vitro , YM was 15.7 GPa (Grandio) and 8.7 GPa (Tetric Ceram; p < 0.05), FS was 115.0 MPa (Grandio) versus 101.5 MPa (Tetric Ceram; p > 0.05), and FFL was 63.0 MPa (Grandio) versus 44.3 MPa (Tetric Ceram; p < 0.05). In vivo , no significant difference in fatigue behavior (cracks, chippings) was evaluated for the different materials under investigation. However, marginal breakdown was more pronounced under the SEM for Tetric Ceram (7.9% vs. 4.8% for Grandio; p < 0.05), but without being clinically relevant. SEM analysis exhibited distinct wear patterns after 6 years with no significant differences among materials as well. Significances: Despite higher in vitro values for YM, FS, and FFL for Grandio, clinical outcome for both resin composite materials over 6 years of clinical service was similar. Higher FFLs in vitro seem to be related to less marginal composite fractures in vivo but without any influence on clinical outcome until the 6 years recall. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. J Biomed Mater Res Part B: Appl Biomater, 2012.

This content is not available in your region!

Continue researching here.

Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom