en pediatric pediatric Original article Original article <div style="text-align: justify;"><span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#2e74b5">Background and Aim</span></span></span></span></b><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#2e74b5">:</span></span></span></span></b> <span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana="">This study compared the fracture resistance and esthetic appearance of reattached incisor tooth fragments with different preparation techniques in simulated crown fractures (CFs).</span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#2e74b5">Materials and Methods: </span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana="">In this in vitro study, 50 permanent maxillary incisors were randomly divided into five groups (n=10). After induction of uncomplicated CFs, the fractured teeth were restored using five methods: (I) simple reattachment (SR), (II) circumferential chamfer (CC), (III) buccal scalloped bevel and lingual bevel (BSB&LB), (IV) buccal and lingual overcontour (BO&LO), and (V) buccal scalloped bevel and lingual overcontour (BSB&LO). After thermocycling, the fracture resistance of the teeth was measured, and their esthetic appearance was assessed using Easyshade spectrophotometer and the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) visual scale. One-way ANOVA, Tukey&rsquo;s post-hoc test, and paired t-test were used to analyze the data (alpha=0.05).</span></span></span>&nbsp;</span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#2e74b5">Results: </span></span></span></span></b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#0e101a">The secondary fracture resistance was significantly lower than the primary fracture resistance in the control (P=0.000), CC (P=0.01), BSB&LB (P=0.004), BO&LO (P<0.001), and BSB&LO (P<0.001) groups. The CC group showed a significantly higher secondary fracture resistance than the BO&LO group (P=0.02). Although a more favorable esthetic appearance was observed in the BSB&LB group, no significant difference was found in color difference (∆E) among the groups. Moreover, no statistically significant difference was detected among the study groups regarding the USPHS scale (P>0.05).</span></span></span></span><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> <span style="font-size:13pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span new="" roman="" style="font-family:" times=""><b><span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#2e74b5">Conclusion:</span></span></span></span></b> <span style="font-size:9.0pt"><span style="line-height:105%"><span style="font-family:" verdana=""><span style="color:#0e101a">Restoration with the CC method may improve the fracture resistance of reattached fragments in simulated CFs in maxillary incisors. However, no considerable difference was found regarding the esthetic appearance among the tested techniques.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br> &nbsp;</div> Esthetics, Dental, Dental Prosthesis, Tooth Crown 25 33 http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1745-1&slc_lang=en&sid=1 Iman Parisay parisayi@mums.ac.ir 100319475328460013966 100319475328460013966 No Pediatric Dentistry Department, Dental Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Alireza Borouzi Niat borouziniata@mums.ac.ir 100319475328460013967 100319475328460013967 No Restorative Dentistry Department, Dental Research Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran Ahmad Toumaj a.toomaj@iautmu.ac.ir 100319475328460013968 100319475328460013968 No Department of Prosthodontics, Dental School, Islamic Azad University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran Lida Bahramian bahramianL@mums.ac.ir 100319475328460013969 100319475328460013969 No Pediatric Dentist, Copenhagen, Denmark Mahdieh Tarkhani MahdiehTa@gmail.com 100319475328460013970 100319475328460013970 No Dentist, Mashhad, Iran Fatemeh Fallah Toosi fatemehfallahtoosi@gmail.com 100319475328460013971 100319475328460013971 No Dentist, Mashhad, Iran Homeira Mohammadi Homeira.mohamadi72@gmail.com 100319475328460013972 100319475328460013972 Yes Pediatric Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences, Mashhad, Iran