The use of different adhesive filling material and mass combinations to restore class II cavities under loading and shrinkage effects: a 3D-FEA

Ausiello, Pietro; Ciaramella, S; Benedictis, Arianna De; Lanzotti, Antonio; Tribst, João Paulo Mendes; Watts, David C.

doi:10.1080/10255842.2020.1836168

Cited by 33 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Biomimetic polymeric materials can also be applied in further studies considering the material mechanical properties [56,57]. FEA allows the assessment and study of areas under stress, applying a certain load in regions of possible failures that can be seen according to the geometry and mechanical behavior of the materials [32,59,60]. However, further fatigue lifetime should be evaluated for restorative materials, expressing its S-N curve to provide a more complete in vitro evaluation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This study evaluated the effect of interim restorative materials (acrylic resin (AR), resin composite (RC) or polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for dental computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM)) on the stress distribution of a posterior three-unit fixed partial denture. Methods: The abutment teeth (first molar and first premolar) were modeled using the BioCAD protocol containing 1.5 mm of axial reduction and converging axial walls. A static structural analysis was performed in the computer-aided engineering software, and the Maximum Principal Stress criterion was used to analyze the prosthesis and the cement layers of both abutment teeth. The materials were considered isotropic, linearly elastic, homogeneous and with bonded contacts. An axial load (600 N) was applied to the occlusal surface of the second premolar. Results: Regardless of the restorative material, the region of the prosthetic connectors showed the highest tensile stress magnitude. The highest stress peak was observed with the use of RC (129 MPa) compared to PEEK and AR. For the cement layers, RC showed the lowest values in the occlusal region (7 MPa) and the highest values for the cervical margin (14 MPa) compared to PEEK (21 and 12 MPa) and AR (21 and 13 MPa). Conclusions: Different interim restorative materials for posterior fixed partial dentures present different biomechanical behavior. The use of resin composite can attenuate the stress magnitude on the cement layer, and the use of acrylic resin can attenuate the stress magnitude on the connector region.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to previous reported elastic modulus and Poisson ratio, nine different filling biomaterials were simulated (resin composite, bulk-fill resin composite, alkasite, flowable resin composite, glass ionomer cement, autocured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, resin cement, bulk-fill flowable resin composite, zinc oxide cement). The mechanical properties of each material/structure ( Table 1 ) were inserted into the analysis software and each material was considered as isotropic and homogeneous [ 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Endocrown Biomechanical Response According to Different Pulp Chamber Extension Angles and Filling Materials

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of pulp chamber extension angles and filling material mechanical properties on the biomechanical response of a ceramic endocrown. A 3D model of maxillary molar that underwent endodontically treatment was exported to computer aided design software to conduct finite element analysis (FEA). The endocrown model was modified considering different pulp chamber extension angles (right angle; 6°, 12° and 18° of axial divergence). The solids were imported into the computer aided engineering software in Standard for the Exchange of Product Data (STEP) format. Nine different filling materials were simulated to seal the orifice of the root canal system under each endocrown restoration (resin composite, bulk-fill resin composite, alkasite, flowable resin composite, glass ionomer cement, autocured resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, resin cement, bulk-fill flowable resin composite, zinc oxide cement), totaling 36 models. An axial load (300 N) was applied at the occlusal surface. Results were determined by colorimetric graphs of von-Misses stress (VMS) and Maximum Principal Stress (MPS) on tooth, cement layer, and endocrown restorations. VMS distribution showed a similar pattern between the models, with more stress at the load region for the right-angled endocrowns. The MPS showed that the endocrown intaglio surface and cement layer showed different mechanical responses with different filing materials and pulp chamber angles. The stress peaks plotted in the dispersion plot showed that the filling material stiffness is proportional to the stress magnitude in the endocrown, cement layer and tooth adhesive surface. In addition, the higher the pulp chamber preparation angle, the higher the stress peak in the restoration and tooth, and the lower the stress in the cement layer. Therefore, 6° and 12° pulp chamber angles showed more promising balance between the stresses of the adhesive interface structures. Under the conditions of this study, rigid filling materials were avoided to seal the orifice of root canal system when an endocrown restoration was planned as rehabilitation. In addition, the pulp chamber axial walls were prepared between 6° and 12° of divergence to balance the stress magnitude in the adhesive interface for this treatment modality.

show abstract

“…The mechanical properties, such as elastic modulus (E) in GPa and Poisson's ratio (V), were achieved through the literature or manufacturer data. The solid structures present in the final models consisted of: onlay made of lithium-disilicate (E = 95; V = 0.3) [51] or nanoceramic resin (E = 12.8; V = 0.3) [52], enamel (E = 84; V = 0.3) [53], dentin (E = 18; V = 0.23) [54,55], cement layer (E = 7; V = 0.3) [56], and bulkfill composite resin build-up (E = 8; V = 0.25) [57]. The results in the restoration, cement layer, and tooth structure were obtained using Maximum Principal Stress (MPS), which indicates the tensile stress results in MPa.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical Behavior of Different Restorative Materials and Onlay Preparation Designs in Endodontically Treated Molars

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study evaluated the effect of the combination of three different onlay preparation designs and two restorative materials on the stress distribution, using 3D-finite element analysis. Six models of first lower molars were created according to three preparation designs: non-retentive (nRET), traditional with occlusal isthmus reduction (IST), and traditional without occlusal isthmus reduction (wIST); and according to two restorative materials: lithium-disilicate (LD) and nanoceramic resin (NR). A 600 N axial load was applied at the central fossa. All solids were considered isotropic, homogeneous, and linearly elastic. A static linear analysis was performed, and the Maximum Principal Stress (MPS) criteria were used to evaluate the results and compare the stress in MPa on the restoration, cement layer, and tooth structure (enamel and dentin). A novel statistical approach was used for quantitative analysis of the finite element analysis results. On restoration and cement layer, nRET showed a more homogeneous stress distribution, while the highest stress peaks were calculated for LD onlays (restoration: 69–110; cement layer: 10.2–13.3). On the tooth structure, the material had more influence, with better results for LD (27–38). It can be concluded that nRET design showed the best mechanical behavior compared to IST and wIST, with LD being more advantageous for tooth structure and NR for the restoration and cement layer.

show abstract

The use of different adhesive filling material and mass combinations to restore class II cavities under loading and shrinkage effects: a 3D-FEA

Cited by 33 publications

References 42 publications

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Influence of Polymeric Restorative Materials on the Stress Distribution in Posterior Fixed Partial Dentures: 3D Finite Element Analysis

Lithium Disilicate Ceramic Endocrown Biomechanical Response According to Different Pulp Chamber Extension Angles and Filling Materials

Mechanical Behavior of Different Restorative Materials and Onlay Preparation Designs in Endodontically Treated Molars

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About