Authors : Dr. Yogini Shekhawat; Dr. Manu Bansal; Dr. Harshita Shekhawat; Dr. Rebecca Shylla; Dr. Sanju Kumari; Dr. Sahil Dhar

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/yb7pzkck

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2ppu8sjb

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul512

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background Extensive mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity preparations significantly compromise the biomechanical integrity of posterior teeth by weakening marginal ridges and increasing cuspal deflection. Conventional composite restorations alone are often insufficient to restore the lost fracture resistance of structurally compromised teeth. Fiber-reinforced composite systems have been introduced to improve stress distribution and reinforce weakened tooth structure.  Aim To comparatively evaluate the fracture resistance of MOD-prepared molars restored with composite resin reinforced using polyethylene fibers (Ribbond), glass fibers (Dentapreg), and polyethylene-glass hybrid fibers (NineTen).  Materials and Methods This in vitro comparative experimental study included 160 extracted human molars randomly divided into four groups (n=40). Standardized MOD cavities were prepared using diamond burs under water coolant, and cavity dimensions were standardized using a digital Vernier caliper. Group I served as the control group restored with composite alone, while Groups II, III, and IV were restored using polyethylene fibers, glass fibers, and hybrid fibers respectively. Following adhesive restoration procedures, all samples underwent thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C for 500 cycles. Fracture resistance testing was performed using a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed using Oneway ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test.

Keywords : MOD Cavity; Fracture Resistance; Fiber Reinforced Composite; Ribbond; Dentapreg; Nineten; Composite Restoration; Glass Fiber; Polyethylene Fiber; Biomimetic Dentistry

References :

1. Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989;15(11):512-6.
2. Panitvisai P, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1995;21(2):57-61.
3. Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson CL, Watts DC. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite class II inlay restorations. Dent Mater. 2004;20(9):862-72.
4. Magne P, Douglas WH. Design optimization and evolution of bonded ceramics for the anterior dentition. Quintessence Int. 1999;30(10):661-72.
5. Soares CJ, Martins LR, Pfeifer JM, Giannini M. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with indirect-composite and ceramic inlay systems. Quintessence Int. 2004;35(4):281-6.
6. Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1972;34(4):661-70.
7. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod. 1992;18(7):332-5.
8. Ferracane JL. Resin composite—state of the art. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):29-38.
9. Belli S, Eskitascioglu G. Biomechanical properties and clinical use of a polyethylene fibre post-core material. Int Endod J. 2006;39(1):34-46.
10. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Direct cuspal coverage restoration in posterior teeth: biomechanical rationale and clinical technique. Oper Dent. 2008;33(5):560-71.
11. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21(10):962-70.
12. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based restoratives. J Dent. 1997;25(6):435-40.
13. Feilzer AJ, De Gee AJ, Davidson CL. Setting stress in composite resin in relation to configuration of the restoration. J Dent Res. 1987;66(11):1636-9.
14. Sakaguchi RL, Berge HX. Reduced light energy density decreases post-gel contraction while maintaining degree of conversion in composites. J Dent. 1998;26(8):695-700.
15. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Short glass fiber reinforced restorative composite resin with semi-inter penetrating polymer matrix. Dent Mater. 2007;23(11):1356-62.
16. Vallittu PK. High-aspect ratio fillers: fiber-reinforced composites and their anisotropic properties. Dent Mater. 2015;31(1):1-7.
17. Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Fracture toughness, compressive strength and load-bearing capacity of short fiber-reinforced composite resin. Chin J Dent Res. 2011;14(1):15-9.
18. Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: a critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2003;14(1):13-29
19. Ribbond THM. The reinforcement ribbon for dentistry. Seattle: Ribbond Inc; 2001.
20. Ellakwa AE, Shortall AC, Marquis PM. Influence of fiber type and wetting agent on the flexural properties of an indirect fiber reinforced composite. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;88(5):485-90.
21. Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J. 2005;38(2):73-80.
22. Fráter M, Forster A, Keresztúri M, Braunitzer G, Nagy K. Fracture resistance of molar teeth restored with a short fiber-reinforced composite material. J Dent. 2014;42(9):1143-50.
23. Zotti F, et al. Fracture strength of Ribbond fibers in MOD restorations. Oper Dent. 2014;39(4):E128-35.
24. Mangoush E, et al. Effect of fiber reinforcement type on the performance of large posterior restorations: a review of in vitro studies. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2021;115:104255.
25. Lorena M, et al. Fracture resistance of fiber-reinforced composite restorations: a meta-analysis. Dent Mater J. 2023;42(3):411-20.