Volume 15, Issue 1 (March 2026)
Caspian J Dent Res 2026, 15(1): 21-29 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: IR.MUBABOL.HRI.REC.1400.066
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Besharat Far M, Madani Z S, Saeidi A, Seyedmajidi S, Mahmoudi E. Effect of Temporary Restorative Materials and Cavity Design on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth. Caspian J Dent Res 2026; 15 (1) :21-29
URL: http://cjdr.ir/article-1-475-en.html
URL: http://cjdr.ir/article-1-475-en.html
Associate Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Health Research Institute, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, I.R.Iran. , madani_z@yahoo.com
Abstract: (8 Views)
Introduction: Endodontically treated teeth are highly susceptible to fracture, and the choice of temporary restorative material may influence their Fracture Resistance (FR). This study evaluated the effects of different temporary restorative materials on the FR of endodontically treated teeth with two cavity designs.
Materials & Methods: In this ex vivo study, 108 sound human maxillary premolars were included. Randomly, 12 teeth served as the negative control. The remaining 96 teeth were randomly assigned to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) or mesio-occlusal (MO) cavity preparations (n=48 per group). Each group was further divided into four subgroups (n=12): unrestored (positive control) or restored with Coltosol F, Cavisol, or NexTemp. FR was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using the independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA, with statistical significance set at P<0.05.
Results: FR was highest in the negative control group, followed by the MO and MOD cavity groups (P<0.001). Teeth with MO cavities demonstrated significantly greater FR than those with MOD cavities (P=0.025). Within the MO groups, FR did not differ significantly among restorative materials. In contrast, within the MOD groups, Coltosol F yielded significantly higher FR than the unrestored control (P=0.042). Compared with the MOD design, the MO design showed significantly greater FR in both the positive control (P=0.028) and NexTemp (P=0.012) groups.
Conclusion: Among the materials evaluated, Coltosol F improved FR in teeth with MOD cavities and may therefore be considered the preferred temporary restorative material in these cases.
Materials & Methods: In this ex vivo study, 108 sound human maxillary premolars were included. Randomly, 12 teeth served as the negative control. The remaining 96 teeth were randomly assigned to mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) or mesio-occlusal (MO) cavity preparations (n=48 per group). Each group was further divided into four subgroups (n=12): unrestored (positive control) or restored with Coltosol F, Cavisol, or NexTemp. FR was measured using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using the independent-samples t-test and one-way ANOVA, with statistical significance set at P<0.05.
Results: FR was highest in the negative control group, followed by the MO and MOD cavity groups (P<0.001). Teeth with MO cavities demonstrated significantly greater FR than those with MOD cavities (P=0.025). Within the MO groups, FR did not differ significantly among restorative materials. In contrast, within the MOD groups, Coltosol F yielded significantly higher FR than the unrestored control (P=0.042). Compared with the MOD design, the MO design showed significantly greater FR in both the positive control (P=0.028) and NexTemp (P=0.012) groups.
Conclusion: Among the materials evaluated, Coltosol F improved FR in teeth with MOD cavities and may therefore be considered the preferred temporary restorative material in these cases.
Type of Study: Research Paper |
Subject:
Endodontics
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
