The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

  • 제8권6호
  • /
  • Pages.489-493
  • /
  • 2016
  • /
  • 2005-7806(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2005-7814(eISSN)
대한치과보철학회 (The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber post-core retained conventional crowns

  • Guo, Jing (Department of Stomatology, the Chinese PLA General Hospital) ;
  • Wang, Zhiming (Department of Stomatology, the Chinese PLA General Hospital) ;
  • Li, Xuesheng (Department of Stomatology, the Chinese PLA General Hospital) ;
  • Sun, Chaoyang (Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Gao, Erdong (Department of Stomatology, the People's Hospital of Cangzhou) ;
  • Li, Hongbo (Department of Stomatology, the Chinese PLA General Hospital)
  • 투고 : 2016.05.15
  • 심사 : 2016.09.28
  • 발행 : 2016.12.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

PURPOSE. This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistances and failure modes of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and conventional post-core retained crowns. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Thirty mandibular premolars were assigned into three groups (n=10): GI, intact teeth; GE, teeth with endocrowns; GC, teeth with conventional post-core supported crowns. Except for the teeth in group GI, all specimens were cut to 1.5 mm above the cementoenamel junction and endodontically treated. Both endocrowns and conventional crowns were fabricated from lithium-disilicate blocks using a CEREC 3D CAD/CAM unit. All specimens were subjected to thermocycling and then to $45^{\circ}$ oblique compressive load until fracture occurred. The fracture resistance and failure mode of each specimen were recorded. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and LSD Post Hoc Test (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. The fracture resistances of GE and GC were significantly lower than that of GI (P<.01), while no significant difference was found between GE and GC (P=.702). As of the failure mode, most of the specimens in GE and GC were unfavorable while a higher occurrence of favorable failure mode was presented in GI. CONCLUSION. For the restoration of mandibular premolar, endocrown shows no advantage in fracture resistance when compared with the conventional method. Both of the two methods cannot rehabilitate endodontically treated teeth with the same fracture resistances that intact mandibular premolars have.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989;15:512-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80191-8
  2. Huang TJ, Schilder H, Nathanson D. Effects of moisture content and endodontic treatment on some mechanical properties of human dentin. J Endod 1992;18:209-15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81262-8
  3. Linn J, Messer HH. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endod 1994;20:479-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80043-9
  4. Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:565-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(94)90438-3
  5. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:30-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2
  6. Bitter K, Kielbassa AM. Post-endodontic restorations with adhesively luted fiber-reinforced composite post systems: a review. Am J Dent 2007;20:353-60.
  7. Stern N, Hirschfeld Z. Principles of preparing endodontically treated teeth for dowel and core restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:162-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(73)90051-6
  8. Hirschfeld Z, Stern N. Post and core-the biomechanical aspect. Aust Dent J 1972;17:467-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.1972.tb04979.x
  9. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7
  10. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:419-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90037-D
  11. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001
  12. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:611-9. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0232
  13. Sivers JE, Johnson WT. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Clin North Am 1992;36:631-50.
  14. Gegauff AG. Effect of crown lengthening and ferrule placement on static load failure of cemented cast post-cores and crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:169-79. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.107583
  15. Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent 2012;37:130-6. https://doi.org/10.2341/11-105-L
  16. Chang CY, Kuo JS, Lin YS, Chang YH. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns. J Dent Sci 2009;4:110-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1991-7902(09)60016-7
  17. Lin CL, Chang YH, Chang CY, Pai CA, Huang SF. Finite element and Weibull analyses to estimate failure risks in the ceramic endocrown and classical crown for endodontically treated maxillary premolar. Eur J Oral Sci 2010;118:87-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00704.x
  18. 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;41:76-82. https://doi.org/10.2341/14-277-L
  19. Salameh Z, Sorrentino R, Papacchini F, Ounsi HF, Tashkandi E, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Fracture resistance and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored using resin composite with or without translucent glass fiber posts. J Endod. 2006;32:752-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.02.002
  20. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed Cerec endo-crowns after 2 years-preliminary results. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:255-65.
  21. Bernhart J, Brauning A, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT. Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. Int J Comput Dent 2010;13:141-54.
  22. Ma J, Miura H, Okada D, Yusa K. Photoelastic stress analysis of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems: normal and alveolar bone resorption cases. Dent Mater J 2011;30:806-13. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2011-070

피인용 문헌

  1. Fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns based on different preparation designs for restoring endodontically treated molars pp.14964155, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.12410
  2. Endocrown in premolar using lithium disilicate-reinforced ceramic: a case report vol.6, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.18256/2238-510x.2017.v6i2.2265
  3. Fracture strengths of endocrown restorations fabricated with different preparation depths and CAD/CAM materials vol.37, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-035
  4. Influence of Restoration Height and Masticatory Load Orientation on Ceramic Endocrowns vol.19, pp.9, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2380
  5. Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Lithium Disilicate of Endodontically Treated Mandibular Damaged Molars Based on Different Preparation Designs vol.2019, pp.None, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/2475297
  6. Clinical efficacy of different marginal forms of endocrowns: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial vol.20, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-019-3530-1
  7. Endocrowns: A systematic review vol.123, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.009
  8. Influence of Occlusal Thickness and Radicular Extension on the Fracture Resistance of Premolar Endocrowns from Different All-Ceramic Materials vol.10, pp.8, 2016, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10082696
  9. Effect of central retainer shape and abduction angle during preparation of teeth on dentin and cement layer stress distributions in endocrown-restored mandibular molars vol.39, pp.3, 2016, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-050
  10. Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth restored with different fiber post and core systems vol.108, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00481-4
  11. Biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with novel endocrown system: 3D Finite Element and Weibull analyses vol.124, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.104853
  12. Rehabilitation of severely-destructed endodontically treated premolar teeth with novel endocrown system: Biomechanical behavior assessment through 3D finite element and in vitro analyses vol.126, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmbbm.2021.105031