The purpose of this study was to investigate the fracture resistance of re-attached coronal fragments of teeth using different materials and tooth preparations. Seventy-two recently extracted bovine incisors were selected. Eight incisors were maintained without any preparation as a control group. The incisal third of the other teeth was sectioned using a diamond saw. In one group (n = 32), a 2-mm bevel was prepared, whereas in the second group no preparation was made (n = 32). The specimens (beveled and non-beveled) were divided in four groups (n = 8) and re-attached with the following materials: a dual-cured resin cement RelyX ARC (RX); a chemically cured composite Bisfil 2B (B2); a light-cured composite Z250 (Z2); and a one-bottle adhesive Single Bond (SB). The bevel region was restored with adhesive and composite. All materials were used according to manufacturer's directions. A light-curing unit was used to polymerize the materials. Specimens were stored in saline solution for 72 h. De-bonding procedures were performed in a testing machine with cross-head speed of 0.6 mm min(-1). The load was applied in the incisal third. The resistance to fracture for control group was 70 (7) kg. The fracture resistance for non-beveled and beveled specimens were: SB, 3.3 (2.4) and 17.0 (4.1); RX, 11.5 (3.0) and 16.3 (3.1); Z2, 14.4 (4.2) and 20.5 (1.7); and B2, 19.5 (3.5) and 32.5 (7.4) kg. Analysis of variance (anova) and Fisher's protected least significant difference (PLSD) test disclosed significant influence for materials and cavity designs (P = 0.001). The highest failure loads were obtained with the B2 group and then with the Z2 with either bevel or non-bevel. RX produced lower failure loads than the restorative composites. The lowest failure load was obtained with SB in the non-beveled group. No technique studied was able to attain the fracture resistance of the control group and both materials and tooth preparation influenced the fracture resistance.
Copyright Blackwell Munksgaard, 2004