The Effects of Various Restorative Techniques on the Fracture Resistance of Pulpotomized Permanent Premolars
Table 1
The mean fracture resistances (N) and standard deviations of the experimental groups.
Groups
Restoration type
Mean ± standard deviation
Group 1
Intact teeth
939.44 ± 114.03A
Group 2
Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with MTA
273.60 ± 45.15B
Group 3
Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with CEM cement
332.69 ± 33.51B
Group 4
MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam
382.40 ± 54.08BC
Group 5
CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam
331.075 ± 60.546BC
Group 6
MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin
431.40 ± 45.92C
Group 7
CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin
418.96 ± 141.99C
Group 8
MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer
444.60 ± 80.66C
Group 9
CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer
394.65 ± 52.74C
Within column, mean values with different uppercase superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences at a significance level of 0.05 (Bonferroni post hoc test).