Influence of cavity depth and restoration of non-carious cervical root lesions on strain distribution from various loading sites

Du, Je-Kang; Wu, Ju-Hui; Chen, Ping-Ho; Ho, Pei-Shan; Chen, Ker-Kong

doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01083-w

Table 2 Strains measured (Average ± SD) at the BU, BL, PU, and PL sites after loading with 9-kg weight at each point on teeth with NCCLs of various depths following restoration with resin composite

From: Influence of cavity depth and restoration of non-carious cervical root lesions on strain distribution from various loading sites

		Restored NCCL site
Loading point	Depth	Measurement site
Loading point	Depth	BU	BL	PU	PL
LC	0 mm	57.89 ± 22.02	159.44 ± 60.82	−251.33 ± 101.98	−447.44 ± 99.91
	0.5 mm	53.67 ± 22.40	157.78 ± 61.40	− 236.56 ± 90.55	− 421.33 ± 84.92
	1 mm	59.00 ± 23.60	172.22 ± 63.05	−237.89 ± 94.59	− 433.56 ± 103.34
	1.5 mm	61.89 ± 21.60	174.89 ± 55.66	−237.00 ± 95.75	−412.11 ± 89.46
	P value	0.89	0.90	0.99	0.87
LI	0 mm	90.56 ± 18.51	514.67 ± 110.89	−305.89 ± 107.10	−792.44 ± 110.12
	0.5 mm	90.89 ± 20.48	497.67 ± 97.36	−290.11 ± 118.41	− 770.67 ± 62.24
	1 mm	92.56 ± 23.59	491.89 ± 134.78	−279.00 ± 107.76	− 754.33 ± 120.89
	1.5 mm	105.56 ± 22.98	520.22 ± 106.23	−293.33 ± 110.05	− 733.11 ± 103.20
	P value	0.41	0.94	0.97	0.65
BC	0 mm	−137.67 ± 7.07	−231.11 ± 36.29	39.22 ± 28.15	99.22 ± 46.75
	0.5 mm	− 151.56 ± 22.35	− 238.56 ± 31.77	44.33 ± 31.53	110.56 ± 43.07
	1 mm	− 154.22 ± 17.67	− 240.56 ± 38.33	46.11 ± 35.89	114.00 ± 60.06
	1.5 mm	−160.44 ± 7.18	− 232.00 ± 21.51	43.22 ± 29.69	107.78 ± 44.69
	P value	0.02	0.90	0.97	0.93
BI	0 mm	−241.44 ± 23.62	−640.22 ± 13.36A	131.00 ± 80.29	542.67 ± 28.49
	0.5 mm	− 246.44 ± 42.75	− 632.78 ± 63.97A	133.22 ± 84.09	544.11 ± 75.44
	1 mm	− 244.56 ± 31.52	− 619.56 ± 38.81A	131.44 ± 82.43	544.22 ± 66.36
	1.5 mm	−198.11 ± 90.06	− 532.67 ± 86.55B	136.44 ± 90.57	539.00 ± 110.69
	P value	0.19	< 0.01*	0.10	0.10
			0 mm < 1.5 mm ^a 0.5 mm < 1.5 mm ^a 1 mm < 1.5 mm ^a
M	0 mm	−18.11 ± 34.97	−71.22 ± 65.89	−32.44 ± 22.86	− 108.00 ± 28.43
	0.5 mm	−17.00 ± 31.50	−73.22 ± 79.63	−24.78 ± 23.80	−92.00 ± 43.12
	1 mm	−21.78 ± 38.36	−69.33 ± 79.30	−25.33 ± 28.36	−96.78 ± 45.82
	1.5 mm	−20.11 ± 33.14	−61.11 ± 56.10	−31.22 ± 22.31	−97.67 ± 25.91
	P value	0.99	0.99	0.87	0.83
D	0 mm	−1.89 ± 13.66	−75.67 ± 71.41	−3.11 ± 23.98	−55.11 ± 106.91
	0.5 mm	3.44 ± 19.78	−45.56 ± 38.02	−7.11 ± 25.03	−93.56 ± 112.10
	1 mm	11.44 ± 12.53	−29.89 ± 67.47	−12.33 ± 45.38	− 114.67 ± 155.99
	1.5 mm	3.89 ± 15.78	−31.89 ± 52.02	−10.89 ± 38.79	−95.22 ± 136.22
	P value	0.36	0.34	0.94	0.80
CO	0 mm	−16.67 ± 16.49	−17.00 ± 63.67	− 105.22 ± 83.92	−185.56 ± 103.63
	0.5 mm	−17.89 ± 23.88	−14.11 ± 65.11	−97.22 ± 72.57	− 177.11 ± 84.51
	1 mm	−12.78 ± 14.53	−6.89 ± 57.89	−96.22 ± 83.49	−177.78 ± 91.49
	1.5 mm	−17.67 ± 18.18	−7.44 ± 58.64	−92.67 ± 80.92	− 164.56 ± 94.74
	P value	0.93	0.98	0.99	0.97

SD standard deviation, BU a strain gauge was fixed to the coronal bucco-cervical region with the tip at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) (considered as the occlusal margin of the NCCL), BL the strain gauge was fixed at the root bucco-cervical region with the tip 1.5 mm from the CEJ (considered as the gingival margin of the NCCL), PU the strain gauge was fixed at the coronal palato-cervical region with the tip at the CEJ, PL the strain gauge was fixed at the root palato-cervical region with the tip at the CEJ, NCCLs Non-carious cervical lesions
^a: the statistically significant differences (p < 0.05) by the post-hoc comparison of Tukey’s pairs comparison

Back to article page

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us

Submission enquiries: bmcoralhealth@biomedcentral.com
General enquiries: ORSupport@springernature.com

BMC Oral Health

Contact us