Fracture resistance of the buccal cuSPS of root filled maxillary premolar teeth restored with various techniques

Abstract Aim To compare the cusp fracture resistance of teeth restored with composite resins and two post systems. Methodology Eighty extracted single‐rooted human maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to eight groups ( n = 10). Group 1 (control) did not receive any preparation. From groups 2 to 8, the teeth were root filled and mesio‐occluso‐distal (MOD) cavities were prepared. Group 2 remained unrestored. Group 3 was restored with packable resin composite using a single‐step adhesive. Group 4 was restored with packable resin composite using a single‐step adhesive and a thin layer of flowable resin composite. Group 5 was restored with packable resin composite using a total‐etch two‐step adhesive. Group 6 was restored with ormocer resin composite using a total‐etch two‐step adhesive. Group 7 was restored with an endodontic glass fibre post and hybrid resin composite using a total‐etch two‐step adhesive. Group 8 was restored with an endodontic zirconium post and hybrid resin composite using a total‐etch two‐step adhesive. The teeth were then mounted in a universal testing machine, the buccal cusp loaded (30°) until fracture, and the data analysed statistically. Results Group 1 had the greatest fracture resistance, and group 2 the poorest. Groups 5–8 had significantly greater ( P < 0.05) fracture resistance than groups 3 and 4. No significant differences were found between groups 3 and 4, or amongst groups 5–8 ( P > 0.05). Conclusions For root filled maxillary premolars with MOD cavities, adhesive resin composite restorations, with and without glass and zirconium posts, increased the fracture resistance of the buccal cuSPS. A total‐etch two‐step adhesive increased significantly fracture resistance more than a one‐step adhesive. For the one‐step adhesive, an additional layer of flowable resin composite did not enhance fracture resistance.