Cuspal deflection of directly or indirectly restored teeth

Daniel Maranha da Rocha, João Maurício Ferraz da Silva, Liliana Gressler May, Maria Amélia Máximo Araújo, Rebeca Di Nicoló, João Carlos Rocha


Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluatethe cuspal deflection of teeth restored directlyand indirectly. Material and Methods: Fortysound maxillary premolar teeth were restoredwith composite and different base materials. Widemesial-occlusal-distal cavity preparations wereperformed, with isthmus width of one third of thedistance between the cuspal tips, 3 mm occlusaland a 5 mm interproximal preparation height. Theteeth were divided into 4 groups (n = 10), accordingto the restoration type: G1) GIC-DCR (1 mm glassionomer cement base and direct restoration usingnanoparticulate composite); G2) FL-DCR (1 mm baseof flowable composite resin and direct restorationusing nanoparticulate composite); G3) GIC-ICR(1 mm glass ionomer cement base and indirectrestoration using nanoparticulate composite GICbase); G4) FL-ICR (1 mm base of flowable compositeresin and indirect restoration using nanoparticulatecomposite). The specimens were submitted tocompressive load of 50 N on the buccal and lingualcusps, in a universal testing machine. The lingualcusp microstrain (με) measurements were executedby strain gauges. Results: The Kruskal-Wallis (5%)test was used and showed there were no significantdifferences among the microstrain values for the fourstudy groups (G1 = 1250; G2 = 1075; G3 = 1279;G4 = 937). Conclusion: It could be concluded thatthe restorative techniques and the bases employeddid not show any influences in cuspal deflection.

Base materials; Cuspal defection; Composite resin; Direct restoration; Indirect restoration.

Full Text: