Research Article
The Effects of Various Restorative Techniques on the Fracture Resistance of Pulpotomized Permanent Premolars
Table 2
The frequency (%) of failure modes among the experimental groups (n = 12).
| | Groups | Restoration type | Mode 1 fracture (restorable) | Mode 2 fracture (unrestorable) |
| | Group 1 | Intact teeth | 11 (91%) | 1 (9%) | | Group 2 | Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with MTA | 4 (33%) | 8 (67%) | | Group 3 | Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with CEM cement | 3 (25%) | 9 (75%) | | Group 4 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam | 5 (41%) | 7 (59%) | | Group 5 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam | 4 (33%) | 8 (67%) | | Group 6 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin | 7 (58%) | 5 (42%) | | Group 7 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin | 7 (58%) | 5 (42%) | | Group 8 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer | 8 (66%) | 4 (34%) | | Group 9 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer | 8 (66%) | 4 (34%) |
|
|
