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 ± 114.03^A
Group 2	Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with MTA	273.60 ± 45.15^B
Group 3	Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with CEM cement	332.69 ± 33.51^B
Group 4	MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam	382.40 ± 54.08^BC
Group 5	CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam	331.075 ± 60.546^BC
Group 6	MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin	431.40 ± 45.92^C
Group 7	CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin	418.96 ± 141.99^C
Group 8	MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer +  a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer	444.60 ± 80.66^C
Group 9	CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer +  a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer	394.65 ± 52.74^C

Within column, mean values with different uppercase superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences at a significance level of 0.05 (Bonferroni post hoc test).