Abstract:
Aim: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of root canal treated (RCT) teeth restored with different types of resin composite restorations.
Methods: A total of 40 freshly extracted human intact mature permanent maxillary premolars were selected and randomly assigned into 4 groups (n = 10 each); the EXF group in which teeth were RCT and restored with a fiber-reinforced bulk-fill flowable composite (Ever-X flow) and covered with a nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z 350), the RBF group in which teeth restored with polyethelene fibers (Ribbond) with a bulk-fill flowable composite (Filtek bulk-fill flow) covered with the same nanofilled composite, the FBF group in which teeth restored with a bulk-fill flowable composite without fiber reinforcement (Filtek bulk-fill flow) also covered with the same nanofilled composite and the control group in which teeth remained intact without any preparation. All teeth were subjected to a thermo-mechanical cycling after which a static fracture test was performed using the universal testing machine to record the load at failure.
Results: The significantly higher mean value of fracture resistance was recorded in the control group than other experimental groups (P < .05). The EXF group showed the highest and followed by RBF group, and the lowest mean value was found in FBF group (P < .05).
Conclusion: Within the limitation of the present study, either short fiber-reinforced composite and polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite may have superior resistance to fracture and could reinforce RCT teeth compared to nanofilled composite without fiber reinforcement.