The practicability of different preparation of mandibular molar restored by modified endocrown with intracanal extension: Computational analysis using finite element models

Gong, Qimei; Hy, Luo; Luo, Junpan; Zhang, Yuejiao; Meng, Qingzhen; Quan, Jingjing; Tong, Zhongchun

doi:10.1016/j.cmpb.2022.107178

Cited by 7 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Fours studies performed FEA comparing ED with PCC. For stresses at remaining tooth structure, ED led to lower values than PCC in two analyses, 26,32 and higher stresses in other 2 studies 19,28 . Two analyses assessed the stresses at restorative materials, with lower values for ED 26,32 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%

“…The majority of studies with anterior teeth has the post‐core‐crown as the comparison group, and it might be assumed that the application of oblique loads associated to intracanal posts were responsible to provide deeper fractures into the root canal 3,4,9,10 . For posterior teeth, as vertical loads predominate during fatigue tests and load to failure analyses, the maximum stresses were located at cervical third of the remaining coronal structure, as shown by FEA, 14,16,19,21,26–29,32,34–36 contributing for more similar failure patterns among restorative configurations tested. Two studies have shown that using zirconia endocrowns in premolars would provide a significant higher number of non‐reparable failures comparing with lithium disilicate and resin composite endocrowns 11,12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For stresses at remaining tooth structure, ED led to lower values than PCC in two analyses, 26,32 and higher stresses in other 2 studies. 19,28 Two analyses assessed the stresses at restorative materials, with lower values for ED. 26,32 Stresses at luting agent were higher for ED in one analysis 26 and higher for PCC in another evaluation.…”

Section: Data Extracted For Molarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment of the biomechanical performance based on laboratory 22–26 and finite element analyses (FEA) studies 27–36 on severely damaged, endodontically treated teeth restorations also aimed to improve the knowledge on this topic. However, it seems there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment option.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4,11 The endocrown technique has showed adequate load-to-failure, marginal adaptation, adhesion to dental tissues, and it can be a single-session procedure, which are attractive features for the clinical practice. 10,20,21 The assessment of the biomechanical performance based on laboratory [22][23][24][25][26] and finite element analyses (FEA) studies [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] on severely damaged, endodontically treated teeth restorations also aimed to improve the knowledge on this topic. However, it seems there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment option.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical performance of endocrown and core‐crown restorations: A systematic review

Lenz

Bacchi²,

Bona

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess and compare, through a systematic review of the literature, the biomechanical performance of endocrowns and traditional core‐crowns (with and without intracanal post) for the rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with severe coronal structure damage.Materials and MethodsA systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In‐vitro studies comparing endocrowns with (post‐)core‐crown restorations were selected and screened by two independent reviewers. The included studies were submitted to the risk of bias analysis using the RoBDEMAT tool and the biomechanical outcomes were collected for qualitative analysis. The extracted data were presented based on comparative analyses among the included studies.ResultsThirty‐one studies were included: 9 studies evaluated restorations of molars, 14 for premolars, and 8 studies evaluated anterior restorations. For the majority of the studies, endocrowns showed either similar or greater survival rates under fatigue and monotonic load than (post‐)core‐crown restorations, irrespectively of the tooth. The endocrowns showed more favorable failure patterns than (post‐)core‐crowns, irrespectively of the tooth. Endocrowns produced lower stresses in the restorative material for molars and premolars and in the luting material for premolars than (post‐)core‐crown restorations. The included studies presented adequate information for most items of the RoBDEMAT risk of bias tool.ConclusionEndocrowns showed similar or greater biomechanical performance than the traditional (post‐)core‐crown restorations in most of the evaluated studies.Clinical SignificanceThis systematic review showed that endocrowns present either similar or greater biomechanical performance than core‐crown restorations for anterior and posterior endodontically treated teeth with severe structural damage.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 82%