Critical evaluation of fracture strength testing for endodontically treated teeth: a finite element analysis study.
Endodontics
Finite element analysis
Fracture strength
Periodontal ligament
Journal
Restorative dentistry & endodontics
ISSN: 2234-7658
Titre abrégé: Restor Dent Endod
Pays: Korea (South)
ID NLM: 101584377
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
May 2019
May 2019
Historique:
received:
30
10
2018
revised:
07
01
2019
accepted:
10
02
2019
entrez:
1
6
2019
pubmed:
1
6
2019
medline:
1
6
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The aim of this study was to investigate whether the diameter and direction of the plunger and simulation of the periodontal ligament (PDL) affected the stress distribution in endodontically treated premolars. A fracture strength test was simulated via finite element analysis. A base model was set up, and the following parameters were modified: plunger diameter (3 mm vs. 6 mm), plunger direction (vertical vs. 135° angular to the central fossa), and PDL simulation. The analysis was conducted using the CosmosWorks structural analysis program, and the results are presented in terms of von Mises stresses. The smaller plunger increased the stresses at the contact area of the crown, but the plunger diameter had no effect on the stress distribution within the root. An angular plunger direction increased stresses within the root, as well as at the buccal cusp of the crown, compared with the vertical direction. Simulation of the PDL caused higher stress accumulation, especially in the cervical region of the root. The plunger diameter had no effect on the stress distribution in the roots, whereas the plunger direction and PDL simulation did affect the stress distribution. More stringent standards can be established by taking such parameters into account when performing fracture testing in future studies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31149613
doi: 10.5395/rde.2019.44.e15
pii: 2019440203
pmc: PMC6529799
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e15Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of Interest: No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Références
J Prosthet Dent. 2001 Jun;85(6):558-67
pubmed: 11404756
J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Oct;28(10):950-7
pubmed: 11737567
Dent Mater. 2002 Jun;18(4):295-303
pubmed: 11992906
Biomaterials. 2002 Jul;23(13):2667-82
pubmed: 12059016
J Endod. 2003 Aug;29(8):529-34
pubmed: 12929701
J Dent Res. 1958 Aug;37(4):710-8
pubmed: 13563732
J Endod. 2005 Apr;31(4):283-7
pubmed: 15793385
Braz Oral Res. 2005 Jan-Mar;19(1):11-6
pubmed: 16229350
J Prosthodont. 2008 Feb;17(2):114-119
pubmed: 17971112
J Endod. 2008 Mar;34(3):258-63
pubmed: 18291271
Dent Mater. 2008 Dec;24(12):1717-9
pubmed: 18514300
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008 Nov;106(5):e31-5
pubmed: 18718782
Clin Oral Investig. 2011 Jun;15(3):403-8
pubmed: 20238232
Eur J Oral Implantol. 2009 Autumn;2(3):201-8
pubmed: 20467630
J Endod. 2010 Sep;36(9):1455-8
pubmed: 20728708
J Endod. 2011 Nov;37(11):1512-5
pubmed: 22000453
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Dec;140(6):806-11
pubmed: 22133945
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012 Dec;12(4):182-9
pubmed: 23177493
J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):103-10
pubmed: 24778502
J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jul;17(4):301-4
pubmed: 25125839
J Appl Oral Sci. 2014 Sep-Oct;22(5):450-8
pubmed: 25466478
J Endod. 2016 Jan;42(1):150-5
pubmed: 26518216
Proc Inst Mech Eng H. 2016 Mar;230(3):230-8
pubmed: 26893228
Swiss Dent J. 2017;127(1):14-23
pubmed: 28134967
Oper Dent. 2018 Mar/Apr;43(2):162-169
pubmed: 29148912
Eng Med. 1984 Oct;13(4):167-73
pubmed: 6399709
J Endod. 1994 Jan;20(1):32-7
pubmed: 8182384
J Endod. 1993 Feb;19(2):87-91
pubmed: 8509743