Skip to main content
Download PDF

Biomimetic approach to strengthen the incisal fracture composite build-up: an in vitro study

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 42 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Objective

Incisal composite build-up shows a high failure susceptibility. The incorporation of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) during composite restoration could improve its strength. Hence the study was planned to compare the effect of various positions of FRC on the strength of composite resin incisal build-ups.

Methods

In maxillary incisors (n = 90), 3 mm of the incisal edge was cut and teeth were categorized into three groups based on the location and number of fibers used during incisal composite build-up - Group I: composite resin; Group II: composite resin and a single fiber palatally and Group III: composite resin along with two fibers palatally.

Results

The data showed that group II had the maximum load-bearing values followed by group I and group III.

Conclusion

Within the confines of our study, it can be concluded that the addition of FRC to the conventional incisal composite build-up increased the overall strength restoration. Such composite restoration reinforced with a single fiber on the palatal side showed the highest load-bearing capacity compared to two fibers reinforced and unreinforced composites. The common mode of failure in group I was in composite resin, in two fibers reinforced at fibers-composite junction, and in one fiber reinforced composite was in the remaining part of the tooth.

Peer Review reports

Introduction

Traumatic dental injuries, common in children and adolescent populations, are caused by various factors like falls, road traffic accidents, sports injuries, assaults etc [1]. In permanent dentition, maxillary central incisors show higher predilection (around 65.65%) for such injuries by virtue of their position, projection and inappropriate lip enveloping. The primary goals in the management of such coronal tooth fractures are aesthetic and functional rehabilitation. Several factors influence the management of coronal tooth fractures such as the extent and pattern of fracture, restorability, concomitant soft tissue injuries, occlusion, aesthetics, finances etc. [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9].

In such fractures, composite resin restoration is a treatment of choice due to its superior aesthetic property [10]. However composite restorations show a high failure rate (around 5%) due to their susceptibility to fracture [11, 12]. Moreover, only 50–60% of fracture resistance was obtained using composite build-up compared to intact incisors. Hence numerous attempts were made to improve the properties of composite resins [13]. The word ‘biomimetic’ indicates the biologically fashioned approach/material designed to imitate the nature [14, 15]. The biomimetic approach integrates the ideas from various disciplines such as materials science, biology, and bioengineering. The contemporary approach in conservative dentistry involves the use of minimally invasive treatment approach with bioinspired materials to achieve the best results.

An array of treatment approaches was attempted for the successful management of an uncomplicated crown fracture. The treatment strategies endeavored include the use of orthodontic bands, stainless steel crowns, pin retained composite restoration, and porcelain crowns [16]. However, these methods compromised the esthetics as well as tooth material. Hence the application of these techniques was not popular. The fractured fragment reattachment was proposed to be a biomimetic substitute for anterior teeth rehabilitation. However this technique pose a high risk of debonding in case of minor injuries [17]. hence the anterior restorative material should not only be esthetic and but also able to endure the impact forces during re-trauma [18]. In the past, attempts have been made to improve the load-bearing capacity of restoration by using different bonding systems and adhesive resins. One of such approaches involve the integration of nano-fillers or polyethene fibers in the composite to augment its mechanical properties. The development of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) technology has led to substantial improvement in the physical properties of dental composite resin. FRC is composed of a thermoplastic polyethylene polymer that is widely applicable in many other fields [19]. In dentistry, FRC can be used in post-cores, space maintainers, splints, and removable prosthodontics [20]. Polymer chains in FRC offer superior impact resistance due to even force distribution [21, 22]. Previous studies found that composite resin reinforcement with fibers improved its fracture resistance [23,24,25,26,27]. It is non-invasive, cost-effective, time saving technology that protects restoration against fractures. Literature lacks studies on the fracture strength of FRC-reinforced incisal composite resin build-up.

Hence, it was hypothesized that fiber reinforced composite could improve the strength of composite restoration in incisal build-ups. Therefore, the study was planned to compare the effect of various locations fiber reinforcement on the strength of composite resin incisal build-ups.

Materials and methods

The research protocol was sanctioned by the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC) (IEC/10/2022/7). The samples used were extracted incisors and no humans were involved. Informed consent was obtained from the participants for the use of their teeth for research purposes.

Sample size calculation

G Power (Version 3.1) software was used for sample size calculation. The sample size was found to be a minimum of 27 per group determined to achieve a 5% of Type I error, 80% of a power for an effective size of 0.5.

Study design and specimens preparation

In this in-vitro experimental study, one hundred twenty freshly extracted human maxillary incisors were collected. Taking all aseptic precautions, calculus, bony debris, and soft tissue remnants were removed from the root surfaces using ultrasonic scalers 0.5% sodium hypochlorite was used for 15 min to disinfect teeth and stored in distilled water until further use. Teeth with wasting defects, cracks, caries, and previous treatments were excluded from the study (n = 9). Periodontal probe was used to select the teeth with similar dimensions (n = 94). The silicon index of each tooth’s crown was prepared so that it acts as a guiding template for the composite build-up. With the help of a surveyor, teeth were mounted at 45˚inclination into an acrylic block till the cemento-enamel junction. In all teeth, 3 mm of the incisal edge of was cut using a thin diamond cutting disc under water-air coolant. Periodontal probe was used to check the dimensions of the cut incisal surface for uniformity. Teeth that showed any visible pulp exposures or cracks were excluded from the study (n = 4).

The prepared teeth (N = 90) were categorized randomly in three groups

Group I (control) (n = 30): Incisal edges were restored with Nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative, 3 M, ESPE, USA).

Group II (n = 30): Incisal edges were restored with Nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative, 3 M, ESPE, USA) and a single fiber (Ribbond, Seattle, WA, USA) on the palatal surface in the center.

Group III (n = 30): Incisal edges were restored with Nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative, 3 M, ESPE, USA) and two fibers (Ribbond, Seattle, WA, USA) at different positions.

Incisal edge build-up

For group I, the incisal margin of all teeth was beveled (about 0.5 mm) using a coarse flame diamond bur. The bevel region was selectively etched (30 s for the enamel and 15 s for the dentin) using a 32% phosphoric acid gel (Scotchbond™ Universal Etchant, 3 M, ESPE, USA) 1 mm beyond the bevel region. Subsequently, the gel was rinsed thoroughly with water and gently air-dried. A dentin bonding agent (Adper™ Single Bond 2 Adhesive, 3 M, ESPE, USA) was applied in 2–3 layers according to the manufacturer’s instructions and was polymerization using a LED light-curing unit for 20 s. The incisal part was restored with Nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek™ Z250 Universal Restorative, 3 M, ESPE, USA) and polymerized incrementally in two layers using a LED light curing unit for the 40s. With the help of previous dimensions of all teeth measured by using William’s graduated probe and the silicon index of an individual tooth, the crown lengths were adjusted to be the same length as that of the original length and the restorations were completed. Polishing and finishing of the composite restoration were done.

For group II, a small box-shaped cavity (1 × 2 × 1mm3) was prepared adjacent to the incisal edge on the mid-palatal surface of each tooth using a straight fissured. Beveling of preparation and etching were done in the same way as done in group I. 2 mm of the FRC (Ribbond, Seattle, WA, USA) was cut and stored in a bonding agent for 5 min in a dark place. The FRC was then gently inserted in the palatal box and extended 1 mm coronal to the fractured edge. Polymerization was carried out using a LED light-curing unit for 20 s. The composite build-up was completed in the same manner as it was done in group (I) For group III, two small boxed-shaped cavities (of similar dimensions as in Group II) were prepared 1 mm apart from each other on the palatal surface to incorporate two fibres. All other steps were followed as in group (II) All restored teeth were stored at 37 degrees centigrade in distilled water for 7 days before testing.

Preparation of teeth for application of load under universal testing machine

Static load was applied to the restored teeth with a Universal testing machine at a speed of 1 mm/min. The acrylic block containing the restored tooth was tightly fixed upright to the base to provide 45 degrees angle between the palatal surface of the tooth and the loading tip (spherical − 2mm2). The load was applied at the mid-palatal surface adjacent to the incisal edge. The load event was registered until fracture for each tooth and the failure mode of each specimen was visually analyzed.

Statistical analysis

The data were entered in a Microsoft Excel sheet, and SPSS software (version 19.0, Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The mean load-bearing capacity of different test groups was represented as mean ± standard error of means (Table 1). The data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test of one-way ANOVA (for non-parametric data) followed by Dunn’s multiple comparisons tests. The p-value of ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Table 1 Mean ± SE load bearing (N) capacity of three different groups confidence interval limits of three different groups
Full size table

Results

The load bearing capacity of all the samples from groups I, II and III are depicted in (Figs. 1, 2 and 3) respectively. The data showed that group II had the maximum load-bearing values followed by group I and group III (Table 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Bar graph representing load bearing capacity of group I

Full size image
Fig. 2
figure 2

Bar graph representing load bearing capacity of group II

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Bar graph representing load bearing capacity of group III

Full size image

In a box-and-whisker type of plot, the upper and lower lines of the box denote the upper and lower reading values respectively and the middle line in the box denotes the median of the sample (Fig. 4).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Box-and-whisker type of plot showing load bearing capacity of all the groups

Full size image

No statistical difference was found between the load-bearing values of groups I and III, while there was a statistically significant difference between the load-bearing values of groups II and III and groups I and II (Table 2). Minimum, Median and Maximum value for all groups is shown in Table 3. Most of the failures that occurred in group I was between the remaining part of the tooth and the restored edge. In group II, most of the failures were in the remaining part of the tooth. In group III, the most of failures were seen in the restored edges.

Table 2 Comparison of mean rank difference and statistical significance between all groups
Full size table
Table 3 Minimum, Median and Maximum value for all groups
Full size table

Discussion

The primary objective evaluated in this study was a comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of the nano-hybrid composite resin restorations with and without FRC for incisal build-up. Uncomplicated anterior crown fractures are conservatively restored using the composite build-up. The main requirements of composite restorative material for incisal edge build-up are aesthetics and high fracture resistance. Hence constant advances were made in the field of adhesive dentistry to magnify its mechanical properties. Despite such advances, the composite resins may not fully restore the fracture resistance of the intact tooth and limit their use for large anterior long-term restoration. To overcome these shortcomings, FRC can be incorporated during the composite restoration. It is a silanized, bondable, pre-impregnated, plasma-treated, leno-woven, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene fibers [28, 29]. Leno-weave is a special pattern of cross-linked threads that increases the durability, stability and shear strength of the FRC due to its high coefficient of elasticity [30]. The typical architecture permits its closed adaption to the outlines of a tooth [31]. The dense nodal junctures of the material decrease the likelihood of damage by evading the fiber displacement during handling. “Gas-plasma” treatment is done in FRC allowing a good chemical bond to composites along with reducing the microcracking [32]. It is a biocompatible, esthetic, translucent material that disappears within the composite, thus improving the esthetic outcome. For these reasons, FRC appears to be the ideal strengthening choice and hence FRC was chosen here to strengthen the composite.

In this study, the tooth was loaded at 45 degrees which created a relative angle of 135 degrees to the palatal surface that closely simulated the clinical scenario of the protrusive function. Group II showed a statistically significant higher load-bearing capacity compared to group I. These findings were similar to the findings of the previous study [33]. FRC-reinforced composite provides improved mechanical properties desirable for the incisal build-up by distributing the forces. This diminished the stress at the interface and created a larger bonding area that is helpful under repeated loading. Moreover, these fibers act as crack stoppers to improve the strength of a composite [34]. Restoration’s success depends on the cohesiveness between the fibers and the surrounding resin matrix, which should ensure uniformity of stress transfer from the matrix to the fibers. The quantity of composite resin amid the fibers is a significant factor in determining the load-bearing capacity of FRC restorations. The resin matrix protects the fibers arrangement to provide ideal strengthening. The increased total fiber content in group III reduced the composite matrix volume and hence it showed less load-bearing capacity. Majority of the failures in group I were observed at the tooth-restoration interface. This was in accordance with the previous studies [35, 36]. In the restored teeth reinforced with fiber in the central part of the palatal surface, most of the fractures occurred in the natural tooth. This could explain the high strength of the fiber-reinforced composite, which exceeds the load-bearing capacity of the tooth, especially in the teeth with thin roots. The palatal anchorage from the high-strength fibers lessened the stress at the restoration-tooth junction. In the restorations reinforced with fibers at two positions, most failures were seen in the restored edges i.e. cohesive fracture. This might be the effect of fiber volume that may reduce the content and strength of the composite. It appears that higher fiber volume in the composite restoration may negatively affect its mechanical properties. A different pattern of fractures of restorations was reported by various researchers [37,38,39,40,41]. These differences may partly be explained by differences in the loading technique. FRC augments not only the impact strength and elasticity but also reduces the microleakage of composite resins [42,43,44]. To withstand greater impact forces during re-trauma conditions, the restorative material should possess higher fracture resistance ideally [24, 45, 46]. It is important to note that the addition of fibers in the composite restoration should not disturb the occlusion, otherwise possibilities of temporomandibular disorders are very high [26, 27, 47, 48].

In this in vitro study, intraorally produced forces in varied directions and intensities cannot be adequately replicated. The study does not consider the influence of thermocycling on fracture propagation characteristics. Here, fiber and composite resin only from a single company were assessed. Further assessment of the effect of thermo-mechanical stresses on the longevity of the restoration should be done. Various clinical trials are mandatory before using this technology routinely.

Conclusion

Within the confines of our study, it can be concluded that the addition of FRC to the conventional incisal composite build-up increased the overall strength restoration. Such composite restoration reinforced with a single fiber on the palatal side showed the highest load-bearing capacity compared to two fibers reinforced and unreinforced composites. The common mode of failure in unreinforced composite was an adhesive failure, in two fibers reinforced composite was a cohesive failure, and in one fiber reinforced composite was in the remaining part of the tooth. The structural arrangement of FRC not only permits its closed adaption to the outlines of a tooth but also minimizes the chances of the fiber displacement during handling. Moreover, FRC is a biocompatible, esthetic, translucent material that disappears within the composite, thus improving the esthetic outcome which is primary requirement when selecting any restorative material for anterior teeth. Future studies should be planned to simulate the masticatory cycle considering cyclic and shear forces.

Data Availability

The data is available with the corresponding author on request.

Abbreviations

FRC:

fiber-reinforced composite

IEC:

Institutional Ethical Committee (),

LED:

light-emitting diode

ANOVA:

Analysis of variance

References

  1. Jadhav G, Kamal C, Rajput A, Dua A, Dharmani U. Management of a rare combination of avulsion and intrusive luxation: a case report. J Conservative Dentistry. 2014;17:587.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Olsburgh S, Jacoby T, Krejci I. Crown fractures in the permanent dentition: pulpal and restorative considerations. Dent Traumatol. 2002;18:103–15.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Maitin N, Maitin SN, Rastogi K, Bhushan R. Fracture tooth fragment reattachment. Case Rep. 2013;2013:bcr2013009183–3.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Soegiantho P, Suryawinata PG, Tran W, Kujan O, Koyi B, Khzam N, et al. Survival of single immediate implants and reasons for loss: a systematic review. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):378–424.

  5. Yokoyama M, Shiga H, Ogura S, Sano M, Komino M, Takamori H, et al. Functional differences between chewing sides of implant-supported denture wearers. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):346–57.

  6. Vozzo LM, Azevedo L, Fernandes JCH, Fonseca P, Araújo F, Teixeira W, et al. The success and complications of complete-arch implant-supported fixed monolithic zirconia restorations: a systematic review. Prosthesis. 2023;5(2):425–36.

  7. Patil P, Madhav VNV, Alshadidi AAF, Saini RS, Aldosari LIN, Heboyan A, et al. Comparative evaluation of open tray impression technique: investigating the precision of four splinting materials in multiple implants. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):844.

  8. Heboyan A, Bennardo F. New biomaterials for modern dentistry. BMC Oral Health. 2023;23(1):817.

  9. Franco R, Miranda M, Di Renzo L, De Lorenzo A, Barlattani A, Bollero P. Glanzmann’s thrombastenia: the role of tranexamic acid in oral surgery. Case Rep Dent. 2018;2018:1–4.

  10. Marrapodi MM, Mascolo A, di Mauro G, Mondillo G, Pota E, Rossi F. The safety of blinatumomab in pediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Front Pediatr. 2022;10.

  11. Mosaddad SA, Mahootchi P, Rastegar Z, Abbasi B, Alam M, Abbasi K, et al. Photodynamic therapy in oral cancer: a narrative review. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2023;41(6):248–64.

  12. Namanloo RA, Ommani M, Abbasi K, Alam M, Badkoobeh A, Rahbar M, et al. Biomaterials in guided bone and tissue regenerations: an update. Adv Mater Sci Eng. 2022;2022:1–14.

  13. Muduroglu R, Ionescu AC, Del Fabbro M, Scolavino S, Brambilla E. Distribution of adhesive layer in class II composite resin restorations before/after interproximal matrix application. J Dent. 2020;103:103494.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Zafar MS, Amin F, Fareed MA, Ghabbani H, Riaz S, Khurshid Z et al. Biomim Aspects Restor Dentistry Biomaterials Biomimetics (Basel). 2020;5.

  15. Kumar N, Maher N, Amin F, Ghabbani H, Zafar MS, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, et al. Biomimetic approaches in clinical endodontics. Biomimetics. 2022;7:229.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Patnana AK, Narasimha Rao VV, Chandrabhatla SK, Rajasekhar VR. Comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of two different Fiber-reinforced Composite restorations with Particulate Filler Composite restorations. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2018;11:277–82.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Andreasen FM, Norén JG, Andreasen JO, Engelhardtsen S, Lindh-Strömberg U. Long-term survival of fragment bonding in the treatment of fractured crowns: a multicenter clinical study. Quintessence Int. 1995;26:669–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Gamal W, Abdou A, Salem GA. Fracture resistance and flexural strength of endodontically treated teeth restored by different short fiber resin composites: a preclinical study. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2022;46:276.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Offringa AR. Thermoplastic composites—rapid processing applications. Compos Part A Appl Sci Manuf. 1996;27:329–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Vallittu PK. High-aspect ratio fillers: Fiber-reinforced composites and their anisotropic properties. Dent Mater. 2015;31:1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Xu T, Farris RJ. Comparative studies of ultra high molecular weight polyethylene fiber reinforced composites. Polym Eng Sci. 2007;47:1544–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Belli S, Cobankara FK, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, Karbhari V. The effect of fiber insertion on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars with MOD cavity and reattached fractured lingual cusps. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2006;79B:35–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Natarajan P, Thulasingam C. The effect of glass and polyethylene Fiber reinforcement on Flexural Strength of Provisional Restorative resins: an in Vitro Study. J Indian Prosthodontic Soc. 2013;13:421–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Patnana A, Vanga NV, Vabbalareddy R, Chandrabhatla S. Evaluating the fracture resistance of fiber reinforced composite restorations - an in vitro analysis. Indian J Dent Res. 2020;31:138.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Minervini G, Franco R, Marrapodi MM, Ronsivalle V, Shapira I, Cicciù M. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders in subjects affected by Parkinson Disease: a systematic review and metanalysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1111/joor.13496.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Di Stasio D, Lauritano D, Minervini G, Paparella RS, Petruzzi M, Romano A, et al. Management of denture stomatitis: a narrative review. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018;32(2 Suppl 1):113–6.

  27. Di Stasio D, Lauritano D, Gritti P, Migliozzi R, Maio C, Minervini G, et al. Psychiatric disorders in oral lichen planus: a preliminary case control study. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2018;32(2 Suppl 1):97–100.

  28. 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Kemaloglu H, Emin Kaval M, Turkun M, Micoogullari Kurt S. Effect of novel restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of teeth treated endodontically: an in vitro study. Dent Mater J. 2015;34:618–22.

  30. Meiers JC, Kazemi RB, Donadio M. The influence of fiber reinforcement of composites on shear bond strengths to enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89:388–93.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Belli S, Dönmez N, Eskitaşcioğlu G. The effect of c-factor and flowable resin or fiber use at the interface on microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2006;8:247–53.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Samadzadeh A, Kugel G, Hurley E, Aboushala A. Fracture strengths of provisional restorations reinforced with plasma-treated woven polyethylene fiber. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:447–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Sharafeddin F, Alavi A, Talei Z. Flexural strength of glass and polyethylene fiber combined with three different composites. J Dent (Shiraz). 2013;14:13–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Nohrström TJ, Vallittu PK, Yli-Urpo A. The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial dentures. Int J Prosthodont. 2000;13:72–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Drummond JL. Degradation, fatigue, and failure of Resin Dental Composite materials. J Dent Res. 2008;87:710–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Garoushi SK, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK. Direct composite resin restoration of an anterior tooth: effect of fiber-reinforced composite substructure. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2007;15:61–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B. Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40:262.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Barreto BCF, Van Ende A, Lise DP, Noritomi PY, Jaecques S, Sloten J, Vander, et al. Short fibre-reinforced composite for extensive direct restorations: a laboratory and computational assessment. Clin Oral Investig. 2016;20:959–66.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Fonseca RB, de Almeida LN, Mendes GAM, Kasuya AVB, Favarão IN, de Paula MS. Effect of short glass fiber/filler particle proportion on flexural and diametral tensile strength of a novel fiber-reinforced composite. J Prosthodont Res. 2016;60:47–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Rathi S, Chaturvedi S, Abdullah S, Rajput G, Alqahtani NM, Chaturvedi M, et al. Clinical trial to assess physiology and activity of masticatory muscles of complete denture wearer following vitamin D intervention. Medicina (B Aires). 2023;59(2):410.

  41. Qazi N, Pawar M, Padhly PP, Pawar V, D’Amico C, Nicita F, et al. Teledentistry: evaluation of instagram posts related to bruxism. Technol Health Care. 2023;31(5):1923–34.

  42. Monaco C, Arena A, Scotti R, Krejci I. Fracture strength of endodontically treated Teeth restored with Composite overlays with and without glass-fiber reinforcement. J Adhes Dent. 2016;18:143–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Garoushi S, Lassila LVJ, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK. Load bearing capacity of fibre-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. J Dent. 2006;34:179–84.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Patnana AK. Evaluating the marginal Integrity of Bulk fill Fibre Reinforced composites in bio-mimetically restored tooth. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.7860/JCDR/2017/27835.10049.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Davari A, Sadeghi M. Influence of different bonding agents and composite resins on fracture resistance of reattached incisal tooth fragment. J Dent (Shiraz). 2014;15:6–14.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Badakar CM, Shashibhushan KK, Naik NS, Reddy VVS. Fracture resistance of microhybrid composite, nano composite and fibre-reinforced composite used for incisal edge restoration. Dent Traumatol. 2011;27:225–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Bollero P. Oral health and implant therapy in Parkinson’s patients: review. Oral Implantol (Rome). 2017;10(2):105.

  48. Minervini G, Franco R, Marrapodi MM, Fiorillo L, Cervino G, Cicciù M. Prevalence of temporomandibular disorders (< scp > TMD) in pregnancy: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Oral Rehabil. 2023;50:627–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors extend their appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University for funding this work through Large group Project RGP-2/255/44.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dept of Dentistry, AIIMS Nagpur, Nagpur, India

    Ganesh R. Jadhav

  2. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College & Hospital, Nagpur, India

    Priya Mittal

  3. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Pune, Maharashtra, India

    Siddharth Shinde

  4. Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, 61471, Saudi Arabia

    Mohammed A. Al-Qarni & Mohammed Al-Obaid

  5. Department of Periodontics and Community Dental Sciences, King Khalid University, 61421, Abha, KSA, Saudi Arabia

    Shahabe Saquib Abullais

  6. Department of Biomedical and Surgical and Biomedical Sciences, Catania University, Catania, 95123, Italy

    Marco Cicciù

  7. Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences (SIMATS), Saveetha University, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

    Giuseppe Minervini

  8. Multidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Dental Specialties, University of Campania “Luigi Vanvitelli”, Caserta, 81100, Italy

    Giuseppe Minervini

Authors
  1. Ganesh R. Jadhav
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Priya Mittal
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Siddharth Shinde
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Mohammed A. Al-Qarni
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Mohammed Al-Obaid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shahabe Saquib Abullais
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Marco Cicciù
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Giuseppe Minervini
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Conceptualization: J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth. Methodology: AQ. Mohammed, AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Software: J. Ganesh, M. Priya. Validation: J. Ganesh, M. Priya. Formal Analysis: AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Investigation: . Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth. Meth-odology: AQ. Mohammed. Resources: AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Data Curation: J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth. Writing–Original Draft Preparation: J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth, AQ. Mohammed, AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Writing–Review and Editing: J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth, AQ. Mohammed, AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Supervision: J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth, AQ. Mohammed, AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe.Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini\. Project Administration: : J. Ganesh, M. Priya, S. Siddharth. Funding Acquisition: AQ. Mo-hammed, AO. Mohammed, S. Shahabe. Final approval of the version to be published: All the authors have approved the final draft of the manuscript to be published.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Ganesh R. Jadhav, Priya Mittal or Giuseppe Minervini.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and Informed Consent to Participate

The research protocol was sanctioned by the Institutional Ethical Committee (IEC), (IEC/10/2022/7). The samples used were extracted incisors and no humans were involved. Informed consent was obtained from the participants for the use of their teeth for research purposes.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jadhav, G.R., Mittal, P., Shinde, S. et al. Biomimetic approach to strengthen the incisal fracture composite build-up: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health 24, 42 (2024). https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12903-023-03679-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.1186/s12903-023-03679-4

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us