Finite element analysis for fracture resistance of reattached human tooth fragment with different types of retentive preparation techniques

Objective: Restoration of traumatized incisors by reattachment of the original tooth fragment appears to be the most conservative treatment approach. But the measurement of forces acting on natural tooth in-vivo poses many challenges. The advent of finite element analysis (FEA) has made it possible to demonstrate the propagation of stress through each part of a tooth and its restoration. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture resistance of reattached human tooth fragment with different types of retentive preparation techniques using finite element analysis. Study design: An intact maxillary central incisor was obtained, scanned by laser and its Computer Assisted Device (CAD) model was generated and then converted to Finite Element Model (FEM). Mechanical properties of tooth specimen and materials were added on the generated mesh. These reattached fragments were then fractured with a force applied at 30◦, 45◦, 70◦ and 90◦ to the long axis of tooth. FEA Calculation was run with the setup. Results: The highest fracture strength recovery was found with internal dentinal groove (64.97%) followed by labial double chamfer with lingual over-contour (54.49%), subsequently by labial and lingual double chamfer (51.31%) and least was with simple reattachment (28.27%). Conclusions: Fracture resistance varied with different retentive techniques and greatest strength was offered by internal dentinal groove preparation.

FEA; CAD; Internal dentinal groove; External double chamfer; Lingual over-contour; Fracture strength

1. Reis A, Francci C, Loguercio AD, Carrilho MRO, Filho LER. Reattachment of anterior fractured teeth: Fracture strength using different technique. Operative Dentistry. 2001; 26: 287–294.

2. Andreasen JO, Ravn JJ. Epidemiology of traumatic dental injuries to primaryband permanent teeth in Danish population sample. International Journal of Oral Surgery. 1972. 1: 235–239.

3. Munksgaard EC, Hojtved L, Jorgensen EH, Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM. Enamel-dentin crown fractures bonded with various bonding agents. Endodontics & Dental Traumatology. 1991; 7: 73–77.

4. Kulkarni V, Bhusari C, Sharma D, Bhusari P, Deshmukh J, Bansal A. Autogenous tooth fragment reattachment: a multidisciplinary management for complicated crown-root fracture with biologic width violation. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2014; 32: 190.

5. Fahl N Jr, Denehy GE, Jackson RD. Protocol for predictable restoration of anterior teeth with composite resins. Practical Periodontics and Aesthetic Dentistry. 1995; 7: 13–21.

6. Andreasen FM, Noren JG, Andreasen JO, Engelhardtsen S, Lindh-Stromberg U. Long term survival of fragment bonding in the treatment of fractured crowns: a multicenter clinical study. Quintessence International. 1995; 26: 669–681.

7. Reis A, Loguercio AD, Kraul A, Matson E. Reattachment of fractured teeth: a review of literature regarding techniques and materials. Operative Dentistry. 2004; 29: 226–233.

8. Williams KR, Edmundson JT, Rees JS. Finite element stress analysis of restored teeth. Dental Materials. 1987; 3: 200–206.

9. Korioth TWP, Versluis A. Modeling the mechanical behavior of the jaws and their related structures by finite element (Fe) analysis. Critical Reviews in Oral Biology & Medicine. 1997; 8: 90–104.

10. da Silva BR, Moreira Neto JJS, da Silva FI, de Aguiar ASW. Finite element analysis applied to dentoalveolar trauma: methodology description. ISRN Dentistry. 2011; 2011: 1–5.

11. Dalia AA, Ensanya AAN, Ayman AD. Surface and mechanical properties of different dental composites. Austin Journal of Dentistry. 2015; 2: 1019.

12. Singhal R, Pathak A. Comparison of the fracture resistance of reattached incisor tooth fragments using 4 different materials. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2012; 30: 310.

13. Borcic J, Braut A. Finite element analysis in dental medicine. Trans-lated from Finite Element Analysis-New Trends and Developments by Ebrahimi F. InTechOpen. 2012.

14. Li XN, Shi YK, Li ZC, Song CY, Chen XD, Guan ZQ, et al. Threedimensional finite element analysis of a maxillary central incisor restored with different post-core materials. International Chinese Journal of Dentistry. 2008; 8: 21–27.

15. Vasudeva G. Finite element analysis: a boon to dental research. The Internet Journal of Dental Science. 2009; 6: 92–97.

16. Huang H, Tsai C, Lee H, Lin C, Yao W, Chiu W, et al. Damping effects on the response of maxillary incisor subjected to a traumatic impact force: a nonlinear finite element analysis. Journal of Dentistry. 2006; 34: 261–268.

17. Madhusudhana K, Lavanya A, Kiranmayi G, VamsiKrishna R, Swaroopkumarreddy A, Suneelkumar C. Shear bond strength evaluation of adhesive and tooth preparation combinations used in reattachment of fractured teeth: an ex-vivo study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2015; 33: 40.

18. Stellini E, Stomaci D, Stomaci M, Petrone N, Favero L. Fracture strength of tooth fragment reattachments with postpone bevel and overcontour reconstruction. Dental Traumatology. 2008; 24: 283–288.

19. Mendes L, Laxe L, Passos L. Ten-year follow-up of a fragment reattachment to an anterior tooth: a conservative approach. Case Reports in Dentistry. 2017; 2017: 1–6.

20. Durski MT, Metz MJ, Crim GA. Tooth fragment reattachment and a class IV restoration: case report. Journal of Dentistry: Oral Health & Cosmesis. 2016; 1: 002.

21. Shabna, Jayasree S, Nishana K, Megha K, RinkuB, SruthiPoornima E. Crown fragment reattachment of anterior fractured tooth—a case report. IOSR- Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences. 2020; 19: 32–37.