Search

Background/Aims: The recommended treatment for uncomplicated crown fractures is bonding the fractured fragment or the fragment reattachment. A paucity was identified regarding the studies comparing the efficacy of micro‐hybrid and nanohybrid composites in fragment reattachment. Hence, the present study aimed to evaluate and compare three materials for bonding of fragments rehydrated by humidification in teeth with uncomplicated crown fractures. Material and Methods: Eighty mandibular bovine incisors with similar dimensions and free of any structural deformities were fractured similar to the technique followed in previous studies. Fracture was simulated, fragments, and stumps were coded, stumps were stored in artificial saliva and the fragments were dehydrated at room temperature and pressure. They were randomly assigned to Group‐1 (no rehydration), Group‐2 (rehydrated and bonded by flowable nanohybrid composite—3M Filtek Supreme Syringe Flowable Composite Resin—A2, Sao Paulo, Brazil), Group‐3 (rehydrated and bonded by flowable micro‐hybrid composite‐ Ruby Flow, InciDental, England, United Kingdom), and Group‐4 (rehydrated and bonded by light‐cured Glass‐Ionomer‐Cement—Voco Ionoseal, Cuxhaven, Germany). The samples were subjected to a universal testing machine to evaluate the force required to fracture the bonded fragments. Results: The highest median value of the force required to fracture was recorded for Group 2 (208.4 N) followed by Group 3 (195.2). The force required to fracture the bonded fragments was lowest in Group 4 (67.2 N) which was lower than the negative control (131.4 N). The differences between the observations in Groups 2 and 3 were not found to be statistically significant. Conclusion: The nano and micro‐hybrid composites showed greater force required to fracture than fragments bonded by LC‐GIC. Dehydrated fragments bonded using nanocomposites performed better than rehydrated fragments bonded by using LC‐GIC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]