Uncomplicated crown fractures are the most common form of traumatic dental injuries (TDIs) in children affecting their personal and social well-being.

Aim: To evaluate the fracture resistance of fractured incisors restored with particulate filler composites, glass fiberreinforced composites, and Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite restorations.

Materials and methods: Standardized incisal and mesioincisal fractures with chamfer preparation were prepared on human maxillary central incisors. Test samples were restored using particulate filler composites (Filtek Z 250), glass fiber-reinforced composites (Fiber-Splint) and polyethylenereinforced composites (Ribbond). Static load was applied to the test samples using Universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were tabulated and analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p = 0.05).

Results: Descriptive statistics of mean [standard deviation (SD)] peak failure load in incisal restorations for particular filler composite, glass fiber-reinforced composites, and polyethylene fiber-reinforced composites were 196.00 (± 67.46), 186.28 (± 66.44), and 246.71 (± 24.52) respectively, whereas for mesio-incisal restorations, mean (SD) peak failure loads were 169.28 (± 33.53), 218.57 (± 74.41), and 225.71 (± 57.52) respectively.

Conclusion: Polyethylene-reinforced composites showed an improved load-bearing capacity in incisal and mesio-incisal restorations when compared with particulate filler composites and glass fiber-reinforced composites.

Keywords: Fracture resistance, Glass fiber-reinforced composites, Incisal fractures, Mesio-incisal fractures, Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composites.

How to cite this article: Patnana AK, Rao VVN, Chandrabhatla SK, Rajasekhar VR. Comparative Evaluation of the Fracture Resistance of Two Different Fiber-reinforced Composite Restorations with Particulate Filler Composite Restorations. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11(4):277-282.

Source of support: Nil

Conflict of interest: None