Main Article Content
Background: Causes of failures in class V restorations have always been controversial until now since the biomechanical aspects of these restorations have been understood.
Aim: To comparatively evaluate the stress distribution of a class V restoration in a lower first premolar using a two-dimensional plane strain finite element model.
Materials and Methods: The study was done by modelling a mandibular first premolar which was sectioned buccolingually, in the Ansys 14.5 finite element software. A 100N eccentric load was applied on the tooth structure and stresses were observed at the peripheries of the class V restoration when it was restored with Centurion N, Giomer and Ketac N100 respectively. Finite element analysis has been used to evaluate the stress distribution.
Results: Alkasite glass ionomer cement & Nanohybrid composite values were comparable to withstand masticatory forces but depicted significantly higher resistance to masticatory load when compared to nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement.
Conclusion: Alkasite glass ionomer cement & Nanohybrid composite are suitable restorative material for class V restorations because of low-stress transfer to the tooth.
Guler MS, Guler C, Cakici F, Cakici EB, Sen S. Finite element analysis of thermal stress distribution in different restorative materials used in class V cavities. Niger J Clin Pract. 2016;19:30-4.
Samanta S, et al. Comparison of microleakage in class V cavity restored with flowable composite resin, glass ionomer cement and cention N. Imperial Journal of Interdisciplinary Research (IJIR). 2017;3(8).
Sonali Taneja, Pragya Kumar, Avnish Kumar. Comparative evaluation of the microtensile bond strength of bulk fill and low shrinkage composite for different depths of class II cavities with the cervical margin in cementum: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(6):532–535.
Lee WC, Eakle WS. Stress-induced cervical lesions: Review of advances in the past 10 years. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75: 487–94.
Najma Hajira NSW, Meena N. GIOMER- The intelligent particle (New Generation Glass Ionomer Cement). Int J Dent Oral Health. 2015;2(4).
Scientific Documentation: Cention N.
Indira Priyadarshini Bollu, Archana Hari, Jayaprakash Thumu, Lakshmi Deepa Velagula, Nagesh Bolla, Sujana Varri, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage between nano-ionomer, giomer and resin modified glass ionomer cement in class V cavities- CLSM study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. 2016;10:66-70.
Rees JS, Jacobsen PH. The elastic modulus of enamel and dentine. Clinical Materials. 1993;14:35.
Natoli AN, Meroi EA. A review of the biomechanical properties of bone as a material. Journal of Biomedical Engineering. 1989;11:266.
Wilson AN, Middleton J, Jones ML, Mcguinness NJ. The finite element analysis of stress in the periodontal ligament when subject to vertical orthodontic forces. British Journal of Orthodontics. 1994;21:150.
Ketac N 100 Product Profile.
Perez C, Gonzalez M, Prado N, Miranda M, Macêdo M, Fernandes B. A review on restoration of non carious cervical lesions. International Journal of Dentistry; 2012.
Perez CR. Alternative technique for class V resin composite restorations with minimum finishing/ polishing procedures. Operative Dentistry. 2010;35:375–379.
Ichim P, Li Q, Loughran J, Swain MV, Kieser JA. Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: Part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dental Materials. 2007;23(12):1553–1561.
Perez CDR, Gonzalez MR, Prado NAS, de Miranda MSF, Macêdo MDA, Fernandes BMP. Restoration of noncarious cervical lesions: When, why, and how. International Journal of Dentistry; 2012.
Matis BA, Cochran MA, Carlson TJ, Eckert GJ, Kulapongs KJ. Giomer composite and microfilled composite in clinical double blind study [Abstract]. J Dent Res. 2002;81:A-80.