RESUMEN
Objective In light of several advancements and considerations in endodontic dentistry, there still remains a need to comprehensively evaluate the outcome disparities between repairing and replacing broken dental restorations. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of repairing dental restorations versus replacing them, focusing on how each method affects the structural strength and longevity of the restorations. Methods The study included 60 freshly removed human maxillary premolars. Initial processing involved rigorous washing, descaling, and polishing of the teeth. To ensure preservation, the specimens were stored in sterile, distilled water. To occlude the root canals, a self-hardening composite resin was used, and the roots were coated with two coats of clear nail polish to prevent moisture penetration. A 245 carbide bur attached to a high-speed dental handpiece with air and water spray cooling produced standardized Class II cavities on the occluso-proximal surfaces. Each cavity had a buccolingual breadth of 2 mm, an occluso-cervical length of 4 mm, and a gingival boundary that was 1 mm coronal to the cement-enamel junction. Following this preparation, the teeth were randomly separated into three groups (Group A, Group B, and Group C), each containing 20 teeth. Results Our analysis showed that teeth with entirely replaced restorations had a higher average fracture resistance than those with repaired restorations. However, the difference in fracture resistance between the repair and replacement groups for each type of material was not statistically significant. Conclusion Based on the findings, repairing a dental restoration can be a conservative and less invasive alternative to a full replacement without a significant compromise in the restoration's ability to withstand fracture. Therefore, dental professionals might consider full restoration as a viable option, taking into account the need to preserve dental tissue as well as the restoration's durability and structural integrity.
