3D interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with fiber-reinforced composites

Purpose: To evaluate interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars, restored with different glass-fiber reinforced materials. Materials and Methods: Eighty-four extracted intact premolars were endodontically treated and MOD cavities prepared. Specimens were divided into 7 groups (n = 12 for each) as follows: sound teeth (G1); no restoration (G2); direct composite restoration with fiber-reinforced composite (everX Posterior GC) (G3); direct composite restoration (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care; "FSXTE") (G4); a horizontal layer of high-viscosity flowable composite (G-aenial Flow, GC) was placed on the pulp chamber floor, 10 mm x 3 mm glass fibers (everStick NET, GC) were inserted into the cavity (G5); same procedure as in group 5 except the direct restoration was made incrementally with FSXTE (3M Oral Care) (G6); composite overlays were placed (G7). Specimens were scanned with micro-CT to evaluate 3D interfacial gaps before and after chewing simulation using Mimics software to calculate voids between restoration and tooth (dentin and enamel). These data (in mm3) were collected for statistical analysis. Thereafter, specimens were loaded to fracture using a universal testing machine. Maximum breaking loads were recorded in Newton (N). The data obtained were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Results: ANOVA showed that horizontal glass-fiber insertions statistically significantly reduced interfacial gaps after chewing simulation. No differences in fracture resistance were found between Filtek Supreme XTE and everX Posterior; moreover, glass-fiber insertion did not significantly improve fracture resistance in either case. Composite overlays achieved significantly better fracture toughness than did direct restorations. Conclusions: For the direct restoration of endodontically treated premolars, the insertion of glass fibers into direct composite restorations was unable to guarantee a significant increase in the fracture resistance or a significant change in the fracture pattern. However, it significantly reduced interfacial gap volume after cycling fatigue.