Fracture resistance of reattached incisor fragments with mini fibre-reinforced composite anchors

Fennis, W.M.M.; Kreulen, C.M.; Wolke, J.G.C.; Fokkinga, W.A.; Machado, C.; Creugers, N.H.J.

doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2009.03.003

« Previous Next »Journal of Dentistry
Volume 37, Issue 6 , Pages 462-467, June 2009

Fracture resistance of reattached incisor fragments with mini fibre-reinforced composite anchors

W.M.M. Fennis
- Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
- Corresponding author at: Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dental Science, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, P.O. Box 9101, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands. Tel.: +31 24 3614004; fax: +31 24 3541971.
C.M. Kreulen
- Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
J.G.C. Wolke
- Department of Periodontology and Biomaterials, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
W.A. Fokkinga
- Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands
C. Machado
- Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University, USA
N.H.J. Creugers
- Department of Oral Function and Prosthetic Dentistry, Radboud University Nijmegen Medical Centre, The Netherlands

Received 27 December 2008; received in revised form 7 March 2009; accepted 9 March 2009.

Abstract

Objectives

Fractured coronal fragments of incisors can be adhered to the remaining tooth with resin composite, but are prone to failure. This study explores whether mini fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) anchors increase fracture resistance of reattached fragments.

Methods

Forty-five extracted incisors were randomly divided into three groups. In Groups A and B coronal fragments were reattached to the remaining tooth, with additionally two anchors placed in Group B. In Group C resin composite buildups were made. Specimens were statically loaded until failure occurred. Failure modes were characterized as intact remaining tooth substrate (adhesive or cohesive failure of coronal fragment) or fractured remaining tooth substrate (fracture limited to enamel or extending into dentin).

Results

Mean fracture loads were 255N (SD=108N) for Group A, 599N (SD=465N) for Group B and 786N (SD=197N) for Group C (values significantly different, all p values <0.05). Group A showed purely adhesive failures, while Groups B and C showed 73 and 53% fractures of remaining tooth substrate (p<0.05).