The Endocrown: An Alternative Approach for Restoring Extensively Damaged Molars

Abstract

It should be borne in mind that endocrowns offer advantages for the restoration of depulped molar teeth, insofar as they promote adequate function and offer adequate esthetics, and also maintain the biomechanical integrity of the compromised structure of non-vital posterior teeth. By eliminating the use of a post and filling core, the number of adhesive bond interfaces is reduced, thus making the restoration less susceptible to the adverse effects of degradation of the hybrid layer. In this clinical case, the 3-year survival of the endocrown restoration may be considered successful.

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Lithium Disilicate Crowns Retained with Fiber Posts Compared to Lithium Disilicate and Cerasmart Endocrowns: In Vitro Study

“…Compared to other indirect restorative alternatives that may require root canal therapy, provision of an endocrown is a relatively easy, costeffective procedure that requires less chairside time, supragingival margins facilitate plaque control and clinical inspection [18]. In addition, endocrown allows minimal tooth reduction and thus strengthens the tooth, by preserving sound dental tissue and root canal structures [19].…”

Fracture strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces

“…They seem to be potentially more resistant to failure than molars restored with glass fiber reinforced composite posts [3][4][5]. Several authors described the clinical procedure for the fabrication of endocrowns made of modern ceramics in case reports [6][7][8][9]. Shortterm clinical evaluations present promising results with respect to aesthetics and functional longevity of endocrowns made of glass ceramic with annual failures rate of 0 to 0.2% up to 12 to 35.5 months of follow up [10][11][12].…”

“ENDOCROWN”—An Effective Viable Esthetic Option for Expurgated Endodontically treated Teeth: Two Case Reports

“…15 Though they are used mainly for metal and metal-ceramic restorations but are generally impractical for all ceramic crowns, as stated by Blair et al 22 Various other secondary retentive factors, such as pins, boxes, slots, 23 can also be considered in such cases in a clinical scenario. In addition, sandblasting was also done in PFM endocrown case (case 2) to enhance the bonding, whereas it was not done in zirconia endocrown case (case 1), as it might lead to an adhesive failure due to compromised bonding, as stated in a study by Aboushelib et al 23 Additionally, in both the tooth preparations, the cervical margins were leveled in the shape of a chamfer throughout the entire extension of the crown and root remainders, maintaining the lingual face terminal in enamel, with an intention of providing greater bond quality and enhanced retention, as stated by Biacchi et al 14 The preparation inside the pulp chamber might also have promoted the mechanical retention and stability of the endocrown. The gutta-percha was removed up to 2 mm in the pulp canal, so as to take advantage of the saddle-like anatomy of the cavity floor, whereas GIC placement in the pulp chamber is a biomimetic concept which creates adequate preparation geometry by filling internal undercuts, thereby attributing to improved marginal seal in the present cases.…”

“…The main advantages of ZrO 2 which was first introduced by Martin Heinrich Klaproth 14 (1789) include (1) noncytotoxicity, (2) highly inert and insolubility in fluids, (3) chemical and dimensional stability, (4) radiopacity, (5) high mechanical strength, (6) increased toughness and elasticity, and (7) no potential of bacterial adhesion. 15,16 Based on these material properties, it is expected that ZrO 2 -based prostheses are able to withstand high masticatory loads and stresses, in addition to the replacement of tooth form and function, including esthetics.…”