Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 414
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size

Table of Contents   
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 151-155
Comparative evaluation of the effect of adhesive restorative composite resins on the reinforcement of peri-cervical dentin: An in vitro study

1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India
2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission28-Sep-2021
Date of Decision22-Dec-2021
Date of Acceptance25-Dec-2021
Date of Web Publication04-May-2022


Background: Peri-cervical dentin (PCD) and its reinforcement play a crucial role in the fracture resistance of root canal-treated teeth.
Aims: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of dual-cure, nano-hybrid, and short-fiber reinforced composite resins restored PCD with conventional hybrid composite (CHC) resin restored endodontically treated mandibular premolars.
Settings and Design: Academic, in vitro study.
Materials and Methods: The prepared mandibular premolar samples were randomly divided into five groups of 10 each. In Group 1, teeth were left intact. The remaining 40 teeth were endodontically treated and obturated as follows: In Group 2, teeth were obturated with gutta-percha till cementoenamel junction and restored with CHC. Teeth in Groups 3, 4, and 5 were obturated to a depth of 5 mm from the cervical line and restored with dual-cure, nano-hybrid, and short-fiber reinforced composite resins, respectively. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine.
Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's test.
Results: Short-fiber reinforced composite resin showed a significantly higher mean fracture resistance value compared with other experimental groups. The mean fracture resistance values were obtained as Group 1 > Group 5 > Group 4 > Group 3 > Group 2.
Conclusions: Reinforcement with short-fiber reinforced composite showed significantly higher fracture resistance compared with nano-hybrid and dual-cure composite resins.

Keywords: Dual-cure composite; multidirectional reinforcement; nano-hybrid composite; peri-cervical dentin

How to cite this article:
Lakshmi Durga IS, Varma K M, Sajjan GS, Satish R K, Praveen G. Comparative evaluation of the effect of adhesive restorative composite resins on the reinforcement of peri-cervical dentin: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2022;25:151-5

How to cite this URL:
Lakshmi Durga IS, Varma K M, Sajjan GS, Satish R K, Praveen G. Comparative evaluation of the effect of adhesive restorative composite resins on the reinforcement of peri-cervical dentin: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 24];25:151-5. Available from:

   Introduction Top

Restoring the tooth with a definitive, permanent, postendodontic restoration plays a crucial role in the success of root canal therapy.[1] The well-executed restoration with a good coronal seal prevents microleakage, maintains occlusal stability, and protects the tooth from cuspal flexure and future fracture. Root canal-treated teeth were claimed to be weaker and more likely to fracture than are the vital teeth.[2] The causes most often cited were loss of dentin, removal of important anatomic structures such as cusps, marginal ridges, and arched roof of the pulp chamber, all of which provide the necessary support for the tooth.[3]

Dentin loss, either iatrogenic or noniatrogenic, makes the tooth more susceptible to mechanical failure and generates higher stress concentrations.[4] Peri-cervical dentin (PCD), extending 4 mm above and 4 mm apical to the crestal level of bone, is of interest in this regard.[5] PCD transfers the occlusal stress along the root long axis. Research suggests that long-term retention of tooth and fracture resistance are in direct relation to the remaining amount of PCD.[6] It has been shown that adhesive restorative materials as intracanal and intracoronal restorations increased the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.[7] Composite resin restorations due to their adhesive property require minimal cavity preparation, thereby resulting in the conservation of tooth structure and providing intracoronal reinforcement.[1],[7]

Nanocomposites serve both functional needs and superior esthetics through the application of nanotechnology.[8] Nanotechnology is the process of creating materials with dimensions ranging from 0.1 to 100 nanometers using a variety of physical and chemical methods. The Nano-hybrid composite (NHC) used in the current study is a methacrylate-based NHC resin. Restorative resins differ in their application consistency from flowable to packable and in their mode of curing from autopolymerizing to dual curing. Dual-cure composites (DCCs) were developed to overcome the limitations of reduced interlayer strength, increased interfacial porosity, and depth of cure by incorporating a redox initiator system along with photoinitiators.[9] The DCC resin used in the current study contains low consistency fluoride fillers, which allows for easy application into the root canal space. Short-fiber reinforced composite resin, i.e., everX Posterior, has gained attention as a restorative material and is commonly suggested for use in high stress-bearing areas.[10] Although studies have shown usage of this material as Onlays, core buildup materials, there is limited literature till now on its effect in reinforcing PCD.[2],[10]

Hence, this study aimed to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of restored PCD in root-filled premolar teeth using various adhesive restorative composite resins.

   Materials and Methods Top

The institutional review board approved (VDC/IEC/2017/37) the study protocol. Fifty intact, non-carious, unrestored human mandibular premolars with single canals that were extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons were selected for the study. A sample size of 10 teeth per group was used with 80% power and 5% significance. Anatomic crowns of identical dimensions (i.e., 7 ± 1 mm mesiodistal diameter and 8 ± 1 mm buccolingual diameter) were measured using a caliper to standardize. Teeth with previous root canal therapy, developmental disturbances, root caries, and canal curvature of >15° were excluded from the study. All teeth were examined under a dental operating microscope (Carl Zeiss surgical GmbH, Germany) at ×10 magnification to confirm the absence of any preexisting fractures. Teeth were cleaned, all the soft-tissue deposits were removed with an ultrasonic scaler and stored in distilled water at room temperature. The maximum storage period for the extracted teeth was 4 months.

Crowns of all the samples were resected to obtain a dimension of 4 mm from 1 mm below the highest point of the proximal cervical line. The enamel was then removed with a diamond abrasive bur from all the surfaces.[6] Access cavities were made in 40 teeth using endo access bur (Dentsply, Maillefer, Switzerland). With a 15 K-file, the working length was established by inserting it into the canal till the apical foramen, then reducing 1 mm from the measured length. Working length was confirmed radiographically. Root canals were instrumented with rotary ProTaper files (Dentsply, Maillefer, U.S.A.) till F3 (#30) size file. During the procedure, glide path verification was done with a size 15 K-file. Intracanal irrigation was done with 2 ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (Prime Dental Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane) after every instrumentation. The root canals received final irrigation of 1 ml of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Prime Dental Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane) followed by 3 ml of 5.25% NaOCl, after which the canals were flushed with 10 ml distilled water to avoid the prolonged effect of EDTA (Prime Dental Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane) and canals were dried with paper points.

[Table 1] provides a description of the materials used in this study. The samples were randomly allocated into five groups (n = 10/each group), and the following procedures were implemented:
Table 1: Description of materials used in the study

Click here to view

Group 1 – Negative control (NC) group – Teeth were left intact and were not subjected to root canal treatment.

Group 2 – Conventional hybrid composite (CHC) group: Teeth were obturated with gutta-percha cones using resin-based sealer (AH Plus sealer, Dentsply) till the level of cementoenamel junction and restored with CHC (Te-Econom Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent).

The remaining 30 teeth were obturated with gutta-percha cones using resin-based sealer (AH Plus sealer, Dentsply) till a depth of 5 mm from the cervical line and were restored as follows:

  • Group 3 – Teeth were restored with DCC resin
  • Group 4 – Restored with NHC resin (NHC)
  • Group 5 – Teeth were restored using short-fiber reinforced composite resin (SFC).

The roots of all teeth after restoration were mounted in self-cure acrylic resin up to the level of 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction. Simulation of periodontal ligament was done with polysiloxane impression material (Reprosil, Dentsply, Switzerland). The specimens were then positioned in a holding slot on the lower arm of the universal testing machine (Instron testing machine, Model No. 8801, U.K.). A metal indenter was fixed to the upper arm of a universal testing machine that was set to deliver increasing loads until fracture (25% drop in applied force). At a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, the load was applied along the long axis of the tooth. The force required for the fracture of each tooth was recorded in newtons (N).

   Results Top

The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 21.0. Armonk, NY, USA: IBM Corp. Data were explored for normality using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov Z test. One-way analysis of variance was used to assess the mean fracture resistance values, followed by post hoc analysis using Tukey's test. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all the comparisons. The mean fracture resistance values are presented in [Table 2]. Group 1 (NC group) showed a mean fracture resistance of 1483.11N, which was significantly higher than the other groups (P <.05). Group 2 (CHC group) showed the lowest fracture resistance (553.838N). Among the experimental groups, Group 5 (SFC group) showed a mean fracture resistance value of 1238.07 N, which is significantly higher than Group 4 (NHC group; 846.06 N), followed by Group 3 (DCC group; 696.85 N). All the pair-wise comparisons were statistically significant with P < 0.05 [Table 3].
Table 2: Comparison of mean fracture resistance between the study groups

Click here to view
Table 3: Intergroup comparison of fracture resistance using Tukey's test

Click here to view

   Discussion Top

The selection of ideal restorative modality to compensate coronal tooth structure loss is considered a key factor for the success of postendodontic restorations.[11] Dentin is the collagen-rich organic matrix reinforced with calcium-phosphate mineral particles. The essential components of dentin are well optimized for various mechanical demands of oral cavity, and the loss of dentin was found to eventually compromise mechanical integrity of residual tooth structure.[4] After a careful understanding of forces responsible for stress development in endodontically treated teeth, the cervical portion of the tooth is the most susceptible area for concentration of stress.[12] It was reported that the mechanical interlocking between enamel and dentin in the cervical portion is weaker than in other areas of the dentinoenamel junction.[13]

Dentin in the cervical portion of the tooth was termed as PCD. It acts as the neck portion of the tooth.[5] Restoring PCD with composite resin resulted in a shift of microstrain away from apical root dentin, causing least apical microstrain with reduced flexing of cervical root dentin and aids in redistribution of the functional loads away from apical region.[14] Propensity to vertical root fracture might be expected to be decreased due to reduction in the apical microstrain. Considering the above findings, the present study focused on evaluating the reinforcement of the critical zone, i.e., the PCD.

In this in vitro study, during the cleaning and shaping of root canal, 17% EDTA (Prime Dental Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane) followed by 5.25% NaOCl (Prime Dental Products Pvt. Ltd., Thane) was used as a final rinse. Weiger et al. recommended using EDTA followed by NaOCl to optimize the adhesion of sealers to the root canal walls.[15] Epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus sealer) was used as it showed higher bond strength to the root canal dentin due to its inherent property of volumetric expansion, which contributes to better bond strength.[16]

In the present study, Group 1 (NC group) showed significantly higher fracture resistance than all the other groups (P < 0.05). This could be due to the presence of tooth-reinforcing structures like roof of pulp chamber and marginal ridges as there was no obvious loss of tooth structure in intact teeth.[17] The roof of the pulp chamber in intact tooth has the configuration of an arch, which is highly resistant to pressure and stress.[18] Group 2 (CHC group) showed significantly lower resistance to fracture (553.83 N) than all the other groups (P < 0.05). This could be because the elastic modulus of filling materials such as gutta-percha presents little or no capacity of reinforcing roots after treatment.[19] Dentin has an elastic modulus of approximately 16GPa whereas, modulus of elasticity of gutta-percha is only 77 MPa which is much lesser than the modulus of elasticity of dentin and therefore cannot strengthen roots.[20]

All the experimental groups of the current study showed significantly higher fracture resistance when compared with the CHC group. The result obtained in this study is consistent with the findings of a similar study wherein the PCD restored with bonded composite resin reduced flexing of cervical root dentin resulting in redistribution of functional loads away from the apical region.[14] Arora et al., in their study on PCD reinforcement ability of postobturation materials, have shown that adhesive postobturation materials significantly reinforced PCD.[6]

In the current study, SFC group showed significantly higher fracture resistance among the experimental groups. The reason could be because of the resin matrix of short-fiber reinforced composite that contains cross-linked bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate, triethylene glycol dimethacrylate, and linear polymethyl methacrylate forming a polymer matrix called semi-interpenetrating polymer network.[21] It provides good bonding and enhances the toughness of composite.[22] Furthermore, it was shown that everX Posterior had improved bond strength to the underlying dentin surface due to the presence of a micromechanical interlocking between the protruding short fibers of everX Posterior and dentin.[23] Short-fiber reinforced composite has an elastic modulus of 12.3 GPa, which is greater than the elastic modulus of all other adhesive composite resins used in the current study.[24] Studies have shown that fiber fillers in short-fiber reinforced composite resin could stop propagation of crack and provides multidirectional isotropic reinforcement effect with greatest reinforcement efficiency and thereby resulting in increased fracture resistance of composite resin.[12],[25] All these factors could have influenced the results obtained in this study. Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that restoring PCD with adhesive composite resins showed a significant increase in fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth when compared with the CHC group. Among the experimental groups, short-fiber reinforced composite resin showed significantly higher reinforcement capability compared to that of nano-hybrid and DCC resins.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

   References Top

Yashwanth G, Nadig RR, Usha G, Karthik J, Vedavathi B, Rao JR. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with direct resin restoration using various corono-radicular retentive techniques: An in-vitro study. Endodontology 2012;24:81-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
Eapen AM, Amirtharaj LV, Sanjeev K, Mahalaxmi S. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with 2 different fiber-reinforced composite and 2 conventional composite resin core buildup materials: An in vitro study. J Endod 2017;43:1499-504.  Back to cited text no. 2
Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: Comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J 2006;39:136-42.  Back to cited text no. 3
Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Queiroz EC, Araújo TC, Campos RE, Araújo CA, et al. Fracture resistance and stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin. J Prosthodont 2008;17:114-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
Makati D, Shah NC, Brave D, Singh Rathore VP, Bhadra D, Dedania MS. Evaluation of remaining dentin thickness and fracture resistance of conventional and conservative access and biomechanical preparation in molars using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:324-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Arora V, Yadav MP, Singh SP, Arora P, Chowdary P. Effect of adhesive obturation and post obturation monoblock systems on reinforcement of Pericervical Dentin (PCD). Int J Bio Trends Tech 2015;8:1-6.  Back to cited text no. 6
Balkaya MC, Birdal IS. Effect of resin-based materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated thin-walled teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2013;109:296-303.  Back to cited text no. 7
Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134:1382-90.  Back to cited text no. 8
Kournetas N, Tzoutzas I, Eliades G. Monomer conversion in dual-cured core buildup materials. Oper Dent 2011;36:92-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer network matrix. Dent Mater 2007;23:1356-62.  Back to cited text no. 10
Sengun A, Cobankara FK, Orucoglu H. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 2008;24:214-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
Pierrisnard L, Bohin F, Renault P, Barquins M. Corono-radicular reconstruction of pulpless teeth: A mechanical study using finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:442-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
Goel VK, Khera SC, Ralston JL, Chang KH. Stresses at the dentinoenamel junction of human teeth – A finite element investigation. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:451-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
Huynh N, Li FC, Friedman S, Kishen A. Biomechanical effects of bonding pericervical dentin in maxillary premolars. J Endod 2018;44:659-64.  Back to cited text no. 14
Weiger R, Heuchert T, Hahn R, Löst C. Adhesion of a glass ionomer cement to human radicular dentine. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995;11:214-9.  Back to cited text no. 15
Fisher MA, Berzins DW, Bahcall JK. An in vitro comparison of bond strength of various obturation materials to root canal dentin using a push-out test design. J Endod 2007;33:856-8.  Back to cited text no. 16
Sagsen B, Aslan B. Effect of bonded restorations on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2006;39:900-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
Dayalan M, Jairaj A, Nagaraj KR, Savadi RC. An evaluation of fracture strength of zirconium oxide posts fabricated using CAD-CAM technology compared with prefabricated glass fibre posts. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2010;10:213-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
Baba SM, Grover SI, Tyagi V. Fracture resistance of teeth obturated with Gutta percha and Resilon: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:61-4.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Williams C, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Pashley DH, Tay FR. A comparison of cohesive strength and stiffness of Resilon and gutta-percha. J Endod 2006;32:553-5.  Back to cited text no. 20
Garoushi S, Säilynoja E, Vallittu PK, Lassila L. Physical properties and depth of cure of a new short fiber reinforced composite. Dent Mater 2013;29:835-41.  Back to cited text no. 21
Vahid NA, Manjunath MK. Comparison of fracture resistance of maxillary first premolars with class-II mesio-occluso-distal cavities restored with newer resin based composites – An ex vivo study. Int J Curr Res 2016;8:814-20.  Back to cited text no. 22
Omran TA, Garoushi S, Abdulmajeed AA, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Influence of increment thickness on dentin bond strength and light transmission of composite base materials. Clin Oral Investig 2017;21:1717-24.  Back to cited text no. 23
Barreto BC, Van Ende A, Lise DP, Noritomi PY, Jaecques S, Sloten JV, et al. Short fibre-reinforced composite for extensive direct restorations: A laboratory and computational assessment. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20:959-66.  Back to cited text no. 24
Garoushi SK, Hatem M, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. The effect of short fiber composite base on microleakage and load-bearing capacity of posterior restorations. Acta Biomater Odontol Scand 2015;1:6-12.  Back to cited text no. 25

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Indukuri Sai Lakshmi Durga
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vishnu Dental College, Vishnupur, Bhimavaram, West Godavari - 534 202, Andhra Pradesh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_487_21

Rights and Permissions


  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]


    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

    Materials and Me...
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded28    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal