Retention of different CAD/CAM endocrowns bonded to severely damaged endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study

Abstract

Aim: Assess the retention of endocrowns fabricated of different CAD/CAM materials. Settings and Design: In vitro - comparative study. Material and Methods: Root canal treated mandibular first molars were prepared in a standardized method. Standardized endocrowns were manufactured using four CAD-CAM blocks: resin infiltrated ceramic (Vita Enamic), partially stabilized tetragonal zirconia (Katana), lithium disilicate ceramic (IPS e.max CAD), and polyether-ether-keton (PEEK, BioHPP). After proper surface treatment, the restorations were cemented using a resin cement (Panavia F2.0) and were connected to a special attachment unit and secured to a universal testing machine. The amount of axial load required to dislodge the restoration from the tooth structure was measured ( n = 12, α = 0.05). Failures were classified as adhesive debonding from the tooth structure without damaging the supporting tooth structure and cohesive fracture of the supporting tooth structure Statistical Analysis Used: One-way analysis of variance,Tukey's post hoc test. Results: The retention of Vita Enamic (61 ± 11 N) and IPS e.max CAD (58 ± 9 N) was significantly higher (F = 123, P < 0.01) than Katana (33 ± 13) and Peek restorations (23 ± 11). Vita Enamic and IPS e.max CAD were associated with fractured tooth segments during debonding while Katana and PEEK specimens were adhesively debonded from the remaining tooth structure. Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, using lithium disilicate ceramics and resin infiltrated ceramics as restorative materials to fabricate endocrowns to restore severely damaged endodontically treated teeth, recorded significantly higher retention values. Meanwhile, using yttrium partially stabilized zirconia and polyether ether ketones for the same purpose recorded a favorable mode failure which avoided the possibility of tooth fracture.

A Comparative Analysis of Marginal Adaptation Values between Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Endocrowns: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

“…Endocrowns can be fabricated by CAD/CAM or heat-press techniques using various ceramic systems, such as lithium silicates and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicates [ 14 , 48 , 49 ]. A variety of the products are used in dental practice and produce prostheses with better accuracy of marginal variation [ 13 , 19 , 21 ].…”

The advancement of adhesive dentistry with the endocrown technique and its diffusion among professionals: a literature review

“…Over the years, publications such as the one by Yasmin Elashmawy et al appeared, which evaluated the retention of endocrowns made of different materials. The results showed that lithium disilicate glass ceramics and resin-infiltrated ceramics recorded considerably higher retention values, while the use of zirconia obtained a favorable failure that avoided possible tooth fracture [9].…”

Restoration of Teeth After Endodontic Treatment With Endocrowns

“…Vita Enamic та IPS e.max CAD продемонстрували набагато кращу ретенцію, ніж реставрації з Katana та PEEK. Під час дебондингу Vita Enamic та IPS e.max CAD були з'єднані зі зламаними сегментами зуба, тоді як зразки Katana та PEEK були відірвані за лінією адгезії [14].…”