The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Stress distribution in premolars restored with inlays or onlays: 3D finite element analysis

  • Yang, Hongso (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Chan (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Shin, Jin-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Yun, Kwi-Dug (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Pil (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Sang-Won (Department of Prosthodontics,School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Chung, Hyunju (Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2017.05.17
  • Accepted : 2018.02.27
  • Published : 2018.06.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. To analyze stress distribution in premolars restored with inlays or onlays using various materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Three-dimensional maxillary premolar models of abutments were designed to include the following: 1) inlay with O cavity (O group), 2) inlay with MO cavity (MO group), 3) inlay with MOD cavity (MOD group), and 4) onlay (ONLAY group). A restoration of each inlay or onlay cavity was simulated using gold alloy, e.max ceramic, or composite resin for restoration. To simulate masticatory forces, a total of 140 N static axial force was applied onto the tooth at the occlusal contact areas. A finite element analysis was performed to predict the magnitude and pattern of stresses generated by occlusal loading. RESULTS. Maximum von Mises stress values generated in the abutment teeth of the ONLAY group were ranged from 26.1 to 26.8 MPa, which were significantly lower than those of inlay groups (O group: 260.3-260.7 MPa; MO group: 252.1-262.4 MPa; MOD group: 281.4-298.8 MPa). Maximum von Mises stresses generated with ceramic, gold, and composite restorations were 280.1, 269.9, and 286.6 MPa, respectively, in the MOD group. They were 252.2, 248.0, 255.1 MPa, respectively, in the ONLAY group. CONCLUSION. The onlay design (ONLAY group) protected tooth structures more effectively than inlay designs (O, MO, and MOD groups). However, stress magnitudes in restorations with various dental materials exhibited no significant difference among groups (O, MO, MOD, ONLAY).

Keywords

References

  1. Shillingburg HT, Sather DA, Wilson EL, Cain JR, Mitchell DL, Blanco LJ, Kessler JC. Fundamentals of fixed prosth- odontics. 4th ed. Chicago; Quintessence; 2012. p. 193-227.
  2. 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
  3. Stappert CF, Guess PC, Gerds T, Strub JR. All-ceramic partial coverage premolar restorations. Cavity preparation design, reliability and fracture resistance after fatigue. Am J Dent 2005; 18:275-80.
  4. Arnelund CF, Johansson A, Ericson M, Häger P, Fyrberg KA. Five-year evaluation of two resin-retained ceramic systems: a retrospective study in a general practice setting. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:302-6.
  5. Cubas GB, Habekost L, Camacho GB, Pereira-Cenci T. Fracture resistance of premolars restored with inlay and onlay ceramic restorations and luted with two different agents. J Prosthodont Res 2011;55:53-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2010.07.001
  6. Kantardzic I, Vasiljevic D, Blazic L, Luzanin O. Influence of cavity design preparation on stress values in maxillary premolar: a finite element analysis. Croat Med J 2012;53:568-76. https://doi.org/10.3325/cmj.2012.53.568
  7. Christensen GJ. The coming demise of the cast gold restoration? J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127:1233-6. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0417
  8. Costa A, Xavier T, Noritomi P, Saavedra G, Borges A. The influence of elastic modulus of inlay materials on stress distribution and fracture of premolars. Oper Dent 2014;39:E160-70. https://doi.org/10.2341/13-092-L
  9. Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, de Lima Navarro MF, Soares FB. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:419-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90213-9
  10. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Romanowicz M. Strength estimation of different designs of ceramic inlays and onlays in molars based on the Tsai-Wu failure criterion. J Prosthet Dent 2007; 98:89-100. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60042-0
  11. Yamanel K, Caglar A, Gülsahi K, Ozden UA. Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J 2009;28:661-70. https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.661
  12. Jiang W, Bo H, Yongchun G, LongXing N. Stress distribution in molars restored with inlays or onlays with or without endodontic treatment: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:6-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60206-7
  13. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Apicella D, Valentino B, Ferrari M, Aversa R, Apicella A. Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis. Dent Mater 2006;22:1035-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.034
  14. Ereifej N, Rodrigues FP, Silikas N, Watts DC. Experimental and FE shear-bonding strength at core/veneer interfaces in bilayered ceramics. Dent Mater 2011;27:590-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2011.03.001
  15. Moon SY, Lim YJ, Kim MJ, Kwon HB. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of platform switched implant. J Adv Prosthodont 2017;9:31-7. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2017.9.1.31
  16. Song HY, Huh YH, Park CJ, Cho LR. A two-short-implant-supported molar restoration in atrophic posterior maxilla: A finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2016;8:304-12. https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2016.8.4.304
  17. Ausiello P, Franciosa P, Martorelli M, Watts DC. Numerical fatigue 3D-FE modeling of indirect composite-restored posterior teeth. Dent Mater 2011;27:423-30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.12.001
  18. St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift EJ Jr, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:551-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(03)00173-2
  19. Cohen S, Berman LH, Blanco L, Bakland L, Kim JS. A demographic analysis of vertical root fractures. J Endod 2006;32: 1160-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.07.008
  20. Thompson MC, Thompson KM, Swain M. The all-ceramic, inlay supported fixed partial denture. Part 1. Ceramic inlay preparation design: a literature review. Aust Dent J 2010;55: 120-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01214.x
  21. Frankenberger R, Taschner M, Garcia-Godoy F, Petschelt A, Krämer N. Leucite-reinforced glass ceramic inlays and onlays after 12 years. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:393-8.
  22. Tang CB, Liul SY, Zhou GX, Yu JH, Zhang GD, Bao YD, Wang QJ. Nonlinear finite element analysis of three implantabutment interface designs. Int J Oral Sci 2012;4:101-8. https://doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2012.35
  23. Molin MK, Karlsson SL. A randomized 5-year clinical evaluation of 3 ceramic inlay systems. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13: 194-200.

Cited by

  1. Stress distribution of molars restored with minimal invasive and conventional technique: a 3-D finite element analysis vol.34, pp.4, 2018, https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2018.34.4.297
  2. Stress Analysis for Different Designs of Implant-borne and Tooth-implant Fixed Partial Dentures in Mandibular Posterior Region vol.20, pp.12, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2707
  3. Young’s modulus and Poisson ratio of composite materials: Influence of wet and dry storage vol.39, pp.4, 2020, https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2019-165
  4. Biomechanical stress and microgap analysis of bone-level and tissue-level implant abutment structure according to the five different directions of occlusal loads vol.12, pp.5, 2018, https://doi.org/10.4047/jap.2020.12.5.316
  5. Resistance against Fracture in Teeth Managed by Root Canal Treatment on Restoring with Onlays, Inlays, and Endocrowns: A Comparative Analysis vol.22, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3123
  6. Influence of Cavity Geometry on the Fracture Strength of Dental Restorations: Finite Element Study vol.11, pp.9, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11094218
  7. Effect of Inlays, Onlays and Endocrown Cavity Design Preparation on Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study vol.30, pp.7, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.13294
  8. Adhesive-Ceramic Interface Behavior in Dental Restorations. FEM Study and SEM Investigation vol.14, pp.17, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14175048
  9. A literature review on the linear elastic material properties assigned in finite element analyses in dental research vol.30, pp.None, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtcomm.2021.103087