Assessment of Bite Forces in Restored Teeth with Different Commonly Used Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study

Assessment of Bite Forces in Restored Teeth with Different Commonly Used Restorative Materials: A Comparative Study

Objective: To evaluate and compare bite force (BF) in permanent first molars restored with glass ionomer cement (GIC), composite and amalgam, and normal contralateral permanent first molars. Material and Methods: BF was recorded in decayed permanent first molars, which were filled with GIC (n=30), c...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors:	Manay Srinivas Munisekhar, Bander Fayez Alruwaili, Kiran Kumar Ganji, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Vinod Bandela, Mohammed Ghazi Sghaireen
Format:	Article
Language:	English
Published:	Association of Support to Oral Health Research (APESB) 2023-08-01
Series:	Pesquisa Brasileira em Odontopediatria e Clínica Integrada
Subjects:	Bite Force Dental Caries Dental Amalgam Glass Ionomer Cements Composite Resins
Online Access:	https://revista.uepb.edu.br/PBOCI/article/view/2468

Similar Items

Matrix Metalloproteinase 2 Is Associated With Secondary Caries Independent From the Restorative Material
by: Merve Benli, et al.
Published: (2021-10-01)

Validity and reliability of methods for the detection of secondary caries around amalgam restorations in primary teeth
by: Mariana Minatel Braga, et al.
Published: (2010-03-01)

Alternative direct restorative materials to dental amalgam
Published: (2024-02-01)

Clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer and resin composite on occlusal restorations performed without rubber-dam isolation: a one-year randomized controlled split-mouth study
by: Hüseyin HATIRLI, et al.
Published: (2021-09-01)

Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis
by: Noeleni Souza Pinto, et al.
Published: (2023-06-01)

Repair of amalgam restorations with composite resin and bonded amalgam: A microleakage study
by: Daniela Araújo Veloso Popoff, et al.
Published: (2011-01-01)

Comparison of CMOS and PSP intraoral digital sensors in the diagnosis of secondary caries adjacent to amalgam restorations
by: S Mehralizadeh, et al.
Published: (2017-10-01)

Assessment of prevalence and causative factors for replacement of composite and amalgam restorations: An observational study
by: Rahaf Naseer Alhoshani, et al.
Published: (2024-01-01)

Influence of buccal-lingual width on the survival rate of proximal ART restorations in ponterior teeth
by: Carolina Guedes Barquete, et al.
Published: (2018-10-01)

Microleakage of Class II Combined Amalgam-Composite Restorations Using Different Composites and Bonding Agents
by: F. Sharafeddin, et al.
Published: (2008-09-01)

The Effect of Selected Dental Materials Used in Conservative Dentistry, Endodontics, Surgery, and Orthodontics as Well as during the Periodontal Treatment on the Redox Balance in the Oral Cavity
by: Izabela Zieniewska, et al.
Published: (2020-12-01)

The different amount of composite and amalgam restoration in posterior teeth of patient
by: Fitri Dwi Primadisya, et al.
Published: (2014-03-01)

Longevity of atraumatic restorations performed by undergraduate dentistry students
by: Luale Leão FERREIRA, et al.

The Changes in Dentists’ Perception and Patient’s Acceptance on Amalgam Restoration in Kurdistan-Iraq: A Questionnaire-based Cross-Sectional Study
by: Bestoon Mohammad Faraj., et al.
Published: (2015-04-01)

A Pragmatic Study Shows Failure of Dental Composite Fillings Is Genetically Determined: A Contribution to the Discussion on Dental Amalgams
by: Alexandre R. Vieira, et al.
Published: (2017-11-01)

Coronal Restoration as a Predictor of Periapical Disease in Non-Endodontically Treated Teeth
by: Romana Peršić Bukmir, et al.
Published: (2021-01-01)

Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations
by: Çiğdem Çelik, et al.
Published: (2020-01-01)

Demineralization around restorations with different restorative materials containing fluoride
by: Letícia Caliento Seixas, et al.
Published: (2004-06-01)

Effect of acid etching of glass ionomer cement surface on the microleakage of sandwich restorations
by: Álvaro Della Bona, et al.
Published: (2007-06-01)

Microleakage comparison of three types of adhesive systems versus GIC-based adhesive in class V composite restorations
by: Mostafa Sadeghi
Published: (2016-06-01)

Comparative Evaluation Of The Hybrid Layer In Lateral Preventive Restorations
by: Irina Maftei, et al.
Published: (2012-01-01)

Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glass-ionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up
by: Maria Cristina Carvalho de Almendra Freitas, et al.
Published: (2018-01-01)

Partial caries removal in deep lesions: 19-30 months follow-up study
by: Marisa Maltz, et al.
Published: (2010-05-01)

Clinical evaluation of reasons for replacement of amalgam vs composite posterior restorations
by: Ayah A Al-Asmar, et al.
Published: (2023-03-01)

The effect of mechanical load cycling and polishing time on microleakage of class V glass-ionomer and composite restorations: A scanning electron microscopy evaluation
by: Mansoreh Mirzaie, et al.
Published: (2014-01-01)

Comparative evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of an alkasite restorative material with glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer cement
by: Dhanraj Kalaivanan, et al.
Published: (2023-03-01)

Diabetes type, hemoglobin A1C biomarker and control as predictors for dental treatment needs
by: Lily A. Hartsock, et al.
Published: (2021-03-01)

Evaluation of urinary mercury concentrations in general dentists and restorative specialists in Mashhad in 2010
by: Majid Akbari, et al.
Published: (2013-02-01)

Factors influencing Saudi dental students′ preference of amalgam or composite for posterior dental restorations
by: Sharat Chandra Pani, et al.
Published: (2014-01-01)

DENTIN ADHESIVE LINER VS COPAL VARNISH FOR THE PREVENTION OF POSTOPERATIVE SENSITIVITY IN AMALGAM RESTORATIONS
by: Mohibullah ., et al.
Published: (2019-10-01)

Atraumatic restorative treatment – a possible option for temporary teeth?
by: Alexandrina Muntean, et al.
Published: (2020-06-01)

Increased Microleakage of Amalgam Restorations after Exposure to 2.4 Ghz Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields from Common Wi-Fi Routers
by: Mortazavi SMJ, et al.
Published: (2017-09-01)

Comparison of microleakage of an alkasite restorative material, a composite resin and a resin-modified glass ionomer
by: Fariba Motevasselian, et al.
Published: (2021-06-01)

Reinforcement of Unsupported Enamel by Restorative Materials and Dentin Bonding Agents: An In Vitro Study
by: M. Mirzaei, et al.
Published: (2010-06-01)

Microleakage Evaluation of Class II Composite Resin Restorations with Different Thicknesses of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer
by: Horieh Moosavi, et al.
Published: (2018-07-01)

Does low-cost GIC have the same survival rate as high-viscosity GIC in atraumatic restorative treatments? A RCT
by: Marcoeli Silva de MOURA, et al.
Published: (2020-01-01)

Evaluation of Microleakage at the Junction Between Combined Amalgam/Composite Resin Restorations Using Different Bonding Systems in Class II Cavities
by: Elham Zajkani, et al.
Published: (2022-11-01)

Pulp vitality of primary molars with deep caries treated with ART restorations: 2-year RCT
by: Gabriela Seabra da Silva, et al.
Published: (2022-05-01)

Bacteriology of deep carious lesions underneath amalgam restorations with different pulp-capping materials - an in vivo analysis
by: Prasanna Neelakantan, et al.
Published: (2012-04-01)

The “Phase Down” of Dental Amalgam Restorations – What are the Criteria for Replacement and Indication?
by: Diogo de Azevedo Miranda, et al.
Published: (2024-02-01)