Effect of Restoration Strategy and Cavity Location on the Fracture Resistance of Teeth with External Cervical Resorption

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorElpe, Saadet
dc.contributor.authorSariyilmaz, Öznur
dc.date.accessioned2026-02-03T11:53:42Z
dc.date.available2026-02-03T11:53:42Z
dc.date.issued2025
dc.departmentÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractIntroduction The restoration of external cervical resorption (ECR) defects requires materials capable of withstanding functional stresses. This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of different restorative approaches applied to buccal versus palatal ECR defects under simulated clinical conditions. Methods Eighty-one extracted human maxillary central incisors were used. Nine intact teeth served as the positive control group (n = 9). The remaining 72 teeth were randomly assigned to standardized buccal or palatal ECR defect groups (n = 36 each). Each subgroup (n = 9) received one of the following treatments: negative control (no restoration), Biodentine alone, Ribbond + Biodentine, or EverX Flow + Biodentine (n = 9 per subgroup). Standardized ECR cavities were created 4 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction, with dimensions of 3 mm in width and 3 mm in depth and connected to the pulp chamber. All specimens underwent chewing simulation (240,000 cycles, 50 N load) and thermocycling (5°C–55°C) prior to fracture testing. The fracture test was performed using a universal testing machine by applying force at a 45° angle, and the maximum load was recorded in Newtons (N). Statistical analysis was performed using parametric or nonparametric tests based on data distribution, with significance set at P < .05. Results The restorative material significantly influenced fracture resistance (P < .05). In buccal defects, the Ribbond + Biodentine group demonstrated significantly higher fracture resistance compared to negative controls. For palatal defects, Biodentine alone showed significantly greater resistance than negative controls. No significant differences were observed between buccal and palatal locations (P > .05). Conclusions While the choice of restorative material had a significant effect on the performance of restorations in ECR defects, the location of the cavity (buccal or palatal) did not significantly influence the outcomes. © 2025 American Association of Endodontists.
dc.description.sponsorshipÇanakkale Onsekiz Mart Üniversitesi, COMU, (TDH-2024-4854)
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.joen.2025.10.001
dc.identifier.issn0099-2399
dc.identifier.pmid41077238
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-105024950471
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2025.10.001
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12428/34295
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherElsevier Inc.
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Endodontics
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_Scopus_20260130
dc.subjectBiodentine
dc.subjectEverX flow
dc.subjectexternal cervical resorption
dc.subjectfracture resistance
dc.subjectRibbond
dc.titleEffect of Restoration Strategy and Cavity Location on the Fracture Resistance of Teeth with External Cervical Resorption
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu