Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques

Background: The aim of this study was to assess the fracture resistance of pulpotomized primary molars restored with incremental and bulk-fill composite application techniques. Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro experimental study, 36 extracted primary molars were nonrandomly (selectively) divided into three groups of 12 each. All teeth underwent conventional pulpotomy treatment, and mesio-occluso-distal cavities were prepared in such a way that the buccolingual width of the preparation was two-thirds of the intercuspal distance, and the depth of the buccal and lingual walls was 4 mm. The teeth were then restored as follows: Group 1 (control) was restored with amalgam, Group 2 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the incremental technique, and Group 3 was restored with Tetric N-Ceram composite using the bulk-fill technique. The restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling and then underwent fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Fracture resistance of groups was compared using the one-way ANOVA and Tukey's honestly significant difference test. Results: The mean fracture resistance was 1291.47 ± 603.88 N in the amalgam, 1283.08 ± 594.57 N in the Tetric N-Ceram incremental, and 1939.06 ± 134.47 N in the Tetric N-Ceram bulk-fill group. The difference in this regard between Group 3 and Groups 1 and 2 was statistically significant (P = 0.019 and P= 0.035, respectively). Conclusion: Bulk-fill composite is recommended for reinforcing the remaining tooth structure after the primary molar pulpotomy procedure. Time-saving characteristics of this material are clinically important for reducing appointment time for children.

Abstract licence: CC BY-NC-SA

A person counts once a day per paper. We keep no cookie and no address: a reader is a hash that changes every day. Any month under five reads shows no number.