Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 2, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Incisor Fragments Using Simple, Bevel, Internal Groove Preparation
Roshni Chandran1, Sreeram Rayar2, Arjun B Ravi3
1Department of Pedodontics & Preventive Dentistry, YMT Dental College, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Aim:
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of anterior crown fragments using three different preparation designs and reattached using two different nanocomposites.
Materials And Methods:
A total of 120 sound human permanent incisors were selected and divided into six groups. The teeth were sectioned and reattached using different preparatory designs and nanocomposites. Group A (simple reattachment with G-aenial Universal Flo), Group A2 (bevel preparation reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo), Group A3 (internal groove preparation reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo), Group B1 (simple reattachment with Polofil NHT Flow), Group B2 (bevel preparation reattached with Polofil NHT Flow), and Group B3 (internal groove preparation reattached with Polofil NHT Flow). The teeth were sectioned and reattached using different preparatory designs and nanocomposites. These teeth were then subjected to thermocycling, and fracture resistance of the reattached fragments was recorded using Instron machine.
Results:
Group A3 showed the highest fracture resistance. The least fracture resistance was seen in Group B1.
Conclusion:
The fracture resistance of reattached incisor fragments depends mainly on the preparation design incorporated and also the material used to restore. Fragments where internal groove preparatory design was done and reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo, showed greater fracture resistance. Simple reattachment preparatory design showed the least fracture resistance, and hence must be avoided.
