# Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Composite Core Buildup Materials: An In Vitro Study

## TL;DR

This study compares how well different dental composite materials resist fractures in teeth restored after root canals.

## Contribution

The study provides a direct in vitro comparison of fracture resistance among SFRC, nanofiller, and microfiller composites for dental restorations.

## Key findings

- SFRC showed significantly higher fracture resistance compared to nanofiller and microfiller composites.
- Microfiller composite had the lowest mean fracture resistance among the tested materials.

## Abstract

Aim

This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance of different materials used in composite core buildups, including conventional filler composite, nanofiller composite, and short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC).

Methods

This in vitro study was conducted on 30 freshly extracted premolars. The teeth were treated using a uniform endodontic procedure, and Fiber Posts (REFORPOST, Angelus) were placed. The teeth were then divided into three groups and restored using different materials. Group 1 was restored using SFRC (everX Posterior, GC, Europe), Group 2 using microfiller composite (Te-Econom Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent), and Group 3 using nanofiller composite (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent). The restoration materials were then light-cured for 40 seconds. The teeth were placed in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron) and a load was applied with a stainless-steel ball (4 mm diameter) until the tooth fractured. The fracture load for each tooth was recorded, and after the mechanical test, the experimental groups were examined for failure modes. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS version 21.0 software. A one-way ANOVA test was conducted to compare more than two groups, followed by Tukey’s test for post hoc pairwise comparison.

Results

The mean fracture resistance of the microfiller composite (346.94±44.63) was the lowest among the three groups. When analyzed using Tukey's test at p<0.05, fracture resistance was significantly higher in the SFRC, followed by nanofillers and microfiller composites.

Conclusion

Due to the increasing demand for aesthetic restorations in recent years, composites have become important in modern restorative dentistry. The development and implementation of composite dental restorative materials rely on a comprehensive understanding of each composite component and consideration of methods for modifying each component. As a result, the findings of this study will be beneficial in determining which material to use based on specific cases.