Table 2.
The frequency (%) of failure modes among the experimental groups (n = 12).
| Groups | Restoration type | Mode 1 fracture (restorable) | Mode 2 fracture (unrestorable) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Intact teeth | 11 (91%) | 1 (9%) |
| Group 2 | Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with MTA | 4 (33%) | 8 (67%) |
| Group 3 | Nonrestored teeth pulpotomized with CEM cement | 3 (25%) | 9 (75%) |
| Group 4 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam | 5 (41%) | 7 (59%) |
| Group 5 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with GIC + amalgam | 4 (33%) | 8 (67%) |
| Group 6 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin | 7 (58%) | 5 (42%) |
| Group 7 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with RMGIC + conventional composite resin | 7 (58%) | 5 (42%) |
| Group 8 | MTA pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer | 8 (66%) | 4 (34%) |
| Group 9 | CEM cement pulpotomized teeth restored with a low viscosity bulk-fill giomer + a high viscosity bulk-fill giomer | 8 (66%) | 4 (34%) |