In-vitro comparison of fracture resistance of CAD/CAM porcelain restorations for endodontically treated molars.
Cad/cam
Endocrown
Fracture strength
Post-crown
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 Oct 2024
05 Oct 2024
Historique:
received:
24
05
2024
accepted:
30
09
2024
medline:
6
10
2024
pubmed:
6
10
2024
entrez:
5
10
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
This study evaluates the fracture strength and patterns of feldspathic porcelain restorations made using CAD/CAM technology for lower first molars with extensive crown destruction. The restorations include post-core and full-contour crown, composite resin core and full-contour crown, and endocrown. This research provides insights into effective restorative options to address tooth fracture risk, supporting minimally invasive procedures and CAD/CAM integration in dental practices. This study utilized 80 permanent mandibular first molars, which were divided into four groups: Group I (Post-Core-Full-contour crown), Group II (Core- Full-contour crown), Group III (Endocrown), and Group IV (Control). Root canal treatment was performed on all samples except for the control group. Following access cavity preparation, restorations for each tooth were fabricated using the CAD/CAM system and cemented with resin cement. The specimens were embedded in acrylic blocks. After undergoing thermomechanical aging, the samples were subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine, which applied force until fracture occurred. The fracture patterns were subsequently analyzed, and the data were statistically evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-Square tests (p < 0.05). A significant difference in fracture values under axial forces was observed (p < 0.05). The control group had the highest fracture strength (1830 ± 277 N), while the Core- full-contour crown group showed the lowest (1532 ± 371 N). Failure types varied significantly among the groups (χ2 = 26.886, df = 9, p = 0.001). The most common failure type was Type-2 (33.75%), characterized by restorable fractures, while Type-3 fractures, unrestorable, were the least common (12.5%). The findings underscore the significance of technological advancements in CAD/CAM for effectively restoring endodontically treated teeth with extensive crown damage. This study contributes valuable insights, emphasizing the clinical relevance of selecting appropriate restorative options to mitigate the risk of tooth fracture associated with coronal restoration failures.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
This study evaluates the fracture strength and patterns of feldspathic porcelain restorations made using CAD/CAM technology for lower first molars with extensive crown destruction. The restorations include post-core and full-contour crown, composite resin core and full-contour crown, and endocrown. This research provides insights into effective restorative options to address tooth fracture risk, supporting minimally invasive procedures and CAD/CAM integration in dental practices.
METHODS
METHODS
This study utilized 80 permanent mandibular first molars, which were divided into four groups: Group I (Post-Core-Full-contour crown), Group II (Core- Full-contour crown), Group III (Endocrown), and Group IV (Control). Root canal treatment was performed on all samples except for the control group. Following access cavity preparation, restorations for each tooth were fabricated using the CAD/CAM system and cemented with resin cement. The specimens were embedded in acrylic blocks. After undergoing thermomechanical aging, the samples were subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine, which applied force until fracture occurred. The fracture patterns were subsequently analyzed, and the data were statistically evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Chi-Square tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
RESULTS
A significant difference in fracture values under axial forces was observed (p < 0.05). The control group had the highest fracture strength (1830 ± 277 N), while the Core- full-contour crown group showed the lowest (1532 ± 371 N). Failure types varied significantly among the groups (χ2 = 26.886, df = 9, p = 0.001). The most common failure type was Type-2 (33.75%), characterized by restorable fractures, while Type-3 fractures, unrestorable, were the least common (12.5%).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The findings underscore the significance of technological advancements in CAD/CAM for effectively restoring endodontically treated teeth with extensive crown damage. This study contributes valuable insights, emphasizing the clinical relevance of selecting appropriate restorative options to mitigate the risk of tooth fracture associated with coronal restoration failures.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39369196
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04983-3
pii: 10.1186/s12903-024-04983-3
doi:
Substances chimiques
Dental Porcelain
12001-21-7
Composite Resins
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Comparative Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1187Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
Garoushi S, Sungur S, Boz Y, Ozkan P, Vallittu PK, Uctasli S, Lassila L. Influence of short-fiber composite base on fracture behavior of direct and indirect restorations. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(7):4543–52.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03768-6
pubmed: 33417063
pmcid: 8310497
Fennis WM, Kuijs RH, Kreulen CM, Roeters FJ, Creugers NH, Burgersdijk RC. A survey of cusp fractures in a population of general dental practices. Int J Prosthodont. 2002;15(6):559–63.
pubmed: 12475162
Vire DE. Failure of endodontically treated teeth: classification and evaluation. J Endod. 1991;17(7):338–42.
doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81702-4
pubmed: 1779219
Fuss Z, Lustig J, Tamse A. Prevalence of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J. 1999;32(4):283–6.
doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00208.x
pubmed: 10551119
Ree M, Schwartz RS. The endo-restorative interface: current concepts. Dent Clin North Am. 2010;54(2):345–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.cden.2009.12.005
pubmed: 20433982
Demarco FF, Collares K, Correa MB, Cenci MS, RRd MORAES, Opdam NJ. Should my composite restorations last forever? Why are they failing? Brazilian oral Res. 2017;31:e56.
doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0056
Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J. 2011;56:84–96.
doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01299.x
pubmed: 21564119
Bernardo M, Luis H, Martin MD, Leroux BG, Rue T, Leitão J, DeRouen TA. Survival and reasons for failure of amalgam versus composite posterior restorations placed in a randomized clinical trial. J Am Dent Association. 2007;138(6):775–83.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2007.0265
Fráter M, Lassila L, Braunitzer G, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Fracture resistance and marginal gap formation of post-core restorations: influence of different fiber-reinforced composites. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(1):265–76.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-02902-3
pubmed: 31098711
Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, part II (evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int 2008, 39(2).
Souza JC, Fernandes V, Correia A, Miller P, Carvalho O, Silva F, Özcan M, Henriques B. Surface modification of glass fiber-reinforced composite posts to enhance their bond strength to resin-matrix cements: an integrative review. Clin Oral Invest 2022:1–13.
Figueiredo FED, Martins-Filho PRS, Faria-e-Silva AL. Do metal post–retained restorations result in more root fractures than fiber post–retained restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2015;41(3):309–16.
doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.006
pubmed: 25459568
Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, part II (evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008;39(2):117–29.
pubmed: 18560650
Pissis P. Fabrication of a metal-free ceramic restoration utilizing the monobloc technique. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995;7(5):83–94.
pubmed: 7548896
Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed Cerec endo-crowns after 2 years–preliminary results. J Adhes Dent. 1999;1(3):255–65.
pubmed: 11725673
Acar DH, Kalyoncuoğlu E. The fracture strength of endocrowns manufactured from different hybrid blocks under axial and lateral forces. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(4):1889–97.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03495-y
pubmed: 32813076
Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res. 1989;68(11):1540–4.
doi: 10.1177/00220345890680111401
pubmed: 2584522
Duret F, Preston JD. CAD/CAM imaging in dentistry. Curr Opin Dent. 1991;1(2):150–4.
pubmed: 1777659
Uzunoglu-Özyürek E, Küçükkaya Eren S, Karahan S. Effect of root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of in vitro studies. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(7):2475–85.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2540-9
pubmed: 29951975
El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):201–10.
doi: 10.2341/13-143-L
pubmed: 25268039
Salameh Z, Ounsi HF, Aboushelib MN, Sadig W, Ferrari M. Fracture resistance and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars with and without glass fiber post in combination with a zirconia-ceramic crown. J Dent. 2008;36(7):513–9.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.014
pubmed: 18479800
Akkayan B, Gülmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):431–7.
doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123227
pubmed: 12011860
Rosentritt M, Krifka S, Strasser T, Preis V. Fracture force of CAD/CAM resin composite crowns after in vitro aging. Clin Oral Investig. 2020;24(7):2395–401.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-019-03099-1
pubmed: 31712983
Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;42(1):39–44.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7
pubmed: 379307
Morgano SM. Restoration of pulpless teeth: application of traditional principles in present and future contexts. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75(4):375–80.
doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90028-1
pubmed: 8642522
Smith CT, Schuman N. Prefabricated post-and-core systems: an overview. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1998;19(10):1013–8. 1020; quiz 1022.
pubmed: 10371883
Faria AC, Rodrigues RC, de Almeida Antunes RP, de Mattos Mda G, Ribeiro RF. Endodontically treated teeth: characteristics and considerations to restore them. J Prosthodont Res. 2011;55(2):69–74.
doi: 10.1016/j.jpor.2010.07.003
pubmed: 20709618
Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Münchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;52:8–14.
doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.005
pubmed: 27421989
Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent. 2012;37(2):130–6.
doi: 10.2341/11-105-L
pubmed: 21942234
Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Anderson RE, Maia HP, Giannini M, Magne P. Influence of Adhesive Core Buildup designs on the resistance of Endodontically treated molars restored with Lithium disilicate CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent. 2016;41(1):76–82.
doi: 10.2341/14-277-L
pubmed: 26266647
Ng CC, Dumbrigue HB, Al-Bayat MI, Griggs JA, Wakefield CW. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;95(4):290–6.
doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.02.026
pubmed: 16616126
Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004;30(5):289–301.
doi: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001
pubmed: 15107639
Pan X, Tang R, Gao A, Hao Y, Lin Z. Cross-sectional study of posterior tooth root fractures in 2015 and 2019 in a Chinese population. Clin Oral Investig. 2022;26(10):6151–7.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04564-0
pubmed: 35670864
Theisen CER, Amato J, Krastl G, Attin T, Blatz MB, Weiger R, Eggmann F. Quality of CAD-CAM inlays placed on aged resin-based composite restorations used as deep margin elevation: a laboratory study. Clin Oral Investig. 2023;27(6):2691–703.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-022-04841-y
pubmed: 36622446
pmcid: 10264514
Rocca GT, Sedlakova P, Saratti CM, Sedlacek R, Gregor L, Rizcalla N, Feilzer AJ, Krejci I. Fatigue behavior of resin-modified monolithic CAD-CAM RNC crowns and endocrowns. Dent Mater. 2016;32(12):e338–50.
doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.024
pubmed: 27671466
Helal MA, Wang Z. Biomechanical Assessment of Restored Mandibular Molar by Endocrown in comparison to a Glass Fiber Post-retained Conventional Crown: 3D finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2019;28(9):988–96.
doi: 10.1111/jopr.12690
pubmed: 29067737
Fontijn-Tekamp FA, Slagter AP, Van Der Bilt A, Van THMA, Witter DJ, Kalk W, Jansen JA. Biting and chewing in overdentures, full dentures, and natural dentitions. J Dent Res. 2000;79(7):1519–24.
doi: 10.1177/00220345000790071501
pubmed: 11005738
De Boever JA, McCall WD Jr., Holden S, Ash MM Jr. Functional occlusal forces: an investigation by telemetry. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;40(3):326–33.
doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(78)90042-2
pubmed: 279679
Waltimo A, Könönen M. Bite force on single as opposed to all maxillary front teeth. Scand J Dent Res. 1994;102(6):372–5.
pubmed: 7871362
Strub JR, Rekow ED, Witkowski S. Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(9):1289–96.
doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0389
pubmed: 16946436
Sahin E, AKTAŞ G, ÖZCAN N, HASANOĞLU AYDIN D AKÇAK. Restoratif Dis Hekimlig inde CAD CAM Laboratuvar Uygulamaları Sirona inLab Sistemi. Clin Dentistry Res 2009, 33.