Abstract
Aim. To determine and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a bulk fill flowable material (SDR) and a traditional resin composite.
Methods. Thirty maxillary and 30 mandibular first molars were selected based on similar dimensions. After cleaning, shaping and filling of the root canals and adhesive procedures, specimens were assigned to 3 subgroups for each tooth type (n=10): Group A: control group, including intact teeth; Group B: access cavities were restored with a traditional resin composite (EsthetX; Dentsply-Italy, Rome, Italy); Group C: access cavities were restored with a bulk fill flowable composite (SDR; Dentsply-Italy), except 1.5 mm layer of the occlusal surface that was restored with the same resin composite as Group B. The specimens were subjected to compressive force in a material static-testing machine until fracture occurred, the maximum fracture load of the specimens was measured (N) and the type of fracture was recorded as favorable or unfavorable. Data were statistically analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests (P<0.05).
Results. No statistically significant differences were found among groups (P<0.05). Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a traditional resin composite and with a bulk fill flowable composite (SDR) was similar in both maxillary and mandibular molars and showed no significant decrease in fracture resistance compared to intact specimens.
Conclusions. No significant difference was observed in the mechanical fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with traditional resin composite restorations compared to bulk fill flowable composite restorations.