Fracture resistance of five intra-orifice barriers in endodontically treated mandibular premolars: an in vitro study

İrfan  Yüksekkaya; Uğur  Aydın; Oğuz  Burhan Çetinkaya; Emre Çulha

doi:10.2298/VSP250822079Y

İrfan Yüksekkaya Gaziantep University, Dentistry Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Gaziantep, Türkiye
Uğur Aydın Gaziantep University, Dentistry Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Gaziantep, Türkiye
Oğuz Burhan Çetinkaya Gaziantep University, Dentistry Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Gaziantep, Türkiye
Emre Çulha Gaziantep University, Dentistry Faculty, Department of Endodontics, Gaziantep, Türkiye

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2298/VSP250822079Y

Keywords: bicuspid;, dental cements;, endodontics;, in vitro;, materials testing;, root canal preparation.

Abstract

Background/Aim. Endodontically treated teeth (ETT) are more prone to fractures than vital teeth, and insertion of an intra-orifice barrier (IOB) can increase their fracture resistance (FR). The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the FR of ETT using smart dentin replacement (SDR), everX Flow (EXF), resin-modified glass-ionomer cements (RMGIC), calcium-enriched mixture (CEM), and universal flowable composite (UFC) as IOBs. Methods. After performing root canal treatment on 70 human mandibular premolars with a single root canal, the coronal 3 mm of root fillings were removed with heated instruments, except for the control specimens. Based on the IOB above the root canal obturation, the filled specimens were divided into six groups: RMGIC (n = 13), UFC (n = 13), SDR (n = 13), CEM (n = 13), EXF (n = 13), and a control group (CG; n = 5). A spherical steel insert with a diameter of 2 mm was used in the strength test with a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, analysis of variance, and least significant difference tests. The value of p < 0.05 is considered statistically significant. Results. The EXF group showed the highest mean FR of 759.9 ± 177.9 Newtons. The groups RMGIC, UFC, and EXF demonstrated a statistically significant difference compared to CG. CEM had a lower FR value than all groups except the SDR and CG. However, the FR of SDR was lower than that of the UFC and EXF groups. There were no significant differences between EXF, UFC, and RMGIC groups. Conclusion. Except for SDR and CEM, all other groups showed an increase in FR compared to CG. The results indicate that using EXF, UFC, or RMGIC as IOB can significantly enhance the FR of ETT compared to untreated controls. Clinically, selecting these IOBs may help prevent root fractures and improve the long-term prognosis of ETT.

References

Usta SN, Tekkanat H, Sağlam Y, Aydin C. Exploring the impact of remaining tooth structure and preparation size on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular premolars. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2025; 19(1): 23–8. DOI: 10.34172/joddd.025.42125.

Kılıç Y, Karataşlıoğlu E, Kaval ME. The effect of root canal preparation size and taper of middle mesial canals on fracture resistance of the mandibular molar teeth: an in vitro study. J Endod 2021; 47(9): 1467–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2021.06.002

Patel S, Bhuva B, Bose R. Present status and future directions: vertical root fractures in root filled teeth. Int Endod J 2022; 55(Suppl 3): 804–26. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13737

Caussin E, Izart M, Ceinos R, Attal JP, Beres F, François P. Advanced material strategy for restoring damaged endodontically treated teeth: a comprehensive review. Materials 2024; 17(15): 3736. DOI:10.3390/ma17153736

Chauhan P, Garg A, Mittal R, Kumar H. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using four different intraorifice barriers: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019; 22(5): 420–4. Erratum in: J Conserv Dent 2020; 23(1): 112. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.297687.

Roghanizad N, Jones JJ. Evaluation of coronal microleakage after endodontic treatment. J Endod 1996; 22(9): 471–3. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80080-X.

Basudan S, Babaier R, Alomran D, Al-Harthi S, Al-Fihed L, Al-Abdulkarim M, et al. Effect of a unique intra-orifice barrier on the sealability and optical properties of endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. Int J Adhes Adhes 2025; 137: 103891. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2024.103891

Hshad ME, Dalkiliç EE, Ozturk GC, Dogruer I, Koray F. Influence of different restoration techniques on fracture resistance of root-filled teeth: In vitro investigation. Oper Dent 2018; 43(2): 162–9. DOI: 10.2341/17-040-L.

Kim EH, Jung KH, Son SA, Hur B, Kwon YH, Park JK. Effect of resin thickness on the microhardness and optical properties of bulk-fill resin composites. Restor Dent Endod 2015; 40(2): 128–35. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2015.40.2.128.

Al-Hasan RM, Al-Taee LA. Interfacial bond strength and morphology of sound and caries-affected dentin surfaces bonded to two resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Oper Dent 2022; 47(4): E188–96. DOI: 10.2341/21-048-L.

Sidhu SK. Glass-ionomer cement restorative materials: A sticky subject? Aust Dent J 2011; 56(Suppl 1): 23–30. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01293.x.

Asgary S, Eghbal MJ, Parirokh M, Ghanavati F, Rahimi H. A comparative study of histologic response to different pulp capping materials and a novel endodontic cement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 106(4): 609–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.06.006.

Aboobaker S, Nair BG, Gopal R, Jituri S, Veetil FRP. Effect of intra-orifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth – An ex-vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(2): ZC17–20. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/11609.5552.

Nagas E, Uyanik O, Altundasar E, Durmaz V, Cehreli ZC, Vallittu PK, et al. Effect of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of roots obturated with resilon or gutta-percha. J Endod 2010; 36(6): 1061–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.006.

Alkahtany MF, Almadi KH, Alahmad FA, Alshehri AM, AlSwayyed AA, AlZahran OM, et al. Influence of root canal sealers and obturation techniques on vertical root fracture resistance. An in vitro experiment. Appl Sci 2021; 11(17): 8022. DOI:10.3390/app11178022

De-Deus G, Cavalcante DM, Belladonna FG, Carvalhal J, Souza EM, Lopes RT, et al. Root dentinal microcracks: a post-extraction experimental phenomenon? Int Endod J 2019; 52(6): 857–65. DOI: 10.1111/iej.13058.

Kim HC. Mechanical Failure After Root Canal Shaping: Strategies for Prevention. In: Jain PR, editor. Common Complications in Endodontics: Prevention and Management. Switzerland: Springer; 2025. pp. 351–61. DOI:10.1007/978-3-031-83394-6_15

Gupta A, Arora V, Jha P, Nikhil V, Bansal P. An in vitro comparative evaluation of different intraorifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots obturated with gutta-percha. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19(2): 111–5. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.178682.

Lassila L, Keulemans F, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Characterization of restorative short-fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater J 2020; 39(6): 992–9. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2019-088.

Ozsevik AS, Yildirim C, Aydin U, Culha E, Surmelioglu D. Effect of fibre-reinforced composite on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Aust Endod J 2016; 42(2): 82–7. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12136.

Selvaraj H, Krithikadatta J. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored With Short Fiber Reinforced Composite and a Low Viscosity Bulk Fill Composite in Class II Mesial-Occlusal-Distal Access Cavities: An Ex-vivo Study. Cureus 2023; 15(8): e42798. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.42798.

Tzimas K, Pappa E, Fostiropoulou M, Papazoglou E, Rahiotis C. Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review. Materials (Basel) 2025; 18(14): 3370. DOI: 10.3390/ma18143370.

Vouvoudi EC. Overviews on the progress of flowable dental polymeric composites: their composition, polymerization process, flowability and radiopacity aspects. Polymers (Basel) 2022; 14(19): 4182. DOI: 10.3390/polym14194182.

Asgary S, Shahabi S, Jafarzadeh T, Amini S, Kheirieh S. The properties of a new endodontic material. J Endod 2008; 34(8): 990–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.05.006.

Milani AS, Rahimi S, Borna Z, Jafarabadi MA, Bahari M, Deljavan AS. Fracture resistance of immature teeth filled with mineral trioxide aggregate or calcium-enriched mixture cement: An ex vivo study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012; 9(3): 299–304.

Sathorn C, Palamara JEA, Palamara D, Messer HH. Effect of root canal size and external root surface morphology on fracture susceptibility and pattern: A finite element analysis. J Endod 2005; 31(4): 288–92. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000140579.17573.f7.

Savadi Oskoee S, Bahari M, Kimyai S, Motahhari P, Eghbal MJ, Asgary S. Shear bond strength of calcium enriched mixture cement and mineral trioxide aggregate to composite resin with two different adhesive systems. J Dent (Tehran) 2014; 11(6): 665–71.

Shahi S, Ghasemi N, Rahimi S, Yavari HR, Samiei M, Janani M, et al. The effect of different mixing methods on the flow rate and compressive strength of mineral trioxide aggregate and calcium-enriched mixture. Iran Endod J 2015; 10(1): 55–8.

Gao J, He J, Fan L, Lu J, Xie C, Yu H. Accuracy of Reduction Depths of Tooth Preparation for Porcelain Laminate Veneers Assisted by Different Tooth Preparation Guides: An In Vitro Study. J Prosthodont 2022; 31(7): 593–600. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13456.

Van Ende A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A, Peumans M, Van Meerbeek B. Bulk-filling of high C-factor posterior cavities: Effect on adhesion to cavity-bottom dentin. Dent Mater 2013; 29(3): 269–77. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2012.11.002.

Atalay C, Yazici AR, Horuztepe A, Nagas E, Ertan A, Ozgunaltay G. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with bulk fill, bulk fill flowable, fiber-reinforced, and conventional resin composite. Oper Dent 2016; 41(5) E131–40. DOI: 10.2341/15-320-L.