Ural Çağrı, Çağlayan Esma
Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Dentist, Oral and Dental Health Hospital, Samsun, Turkey.
J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Oct;126(4):586.e1-586.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.05.018. Epub 2021 Jul 29.
The preparation design and fabrication materials directly affect the clinical success of endocrown restorations, and yet, knowledge is lacking about the biomechanical impact of specific designs or materials on endocrown restorations.
The purpose of this in vitro and finite element analysis study was to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of endocrown restorations.
A total of 36 freshly extracted mandibular first molars were collected. The teeth were prepared as per 2 different preparation geometries: with the buccal wall intact (Class 2) and without the buccal wall (Class 3). Teeth were restored with endocrowns made from 3 different fabricating materials, Vita Enamic, GC Cerasmart, and Lava Ultimate. To analyze the in vitro fracture strength, cemented endocrowns were loaded in a universal test machine with a 200-N oblique force until the restoration fractured. Finite element analysis was used to evaluate the stress distribution on both the dentin tissue and the restorative materials. The data were analyzed with a 2-way ANOVA test and the Tukey post hoc test (α=.05).
No significant differences were found between the different preparation designs (Class 2 and Class 3) on fracture strength (P>.05). The highest mean ±standard deviation fracture strength values were found in the Lava Ultimate material (Class 2, 606.20 ±293; Class 3, 659.40 ±226 N) (P>.05), but the lowest fracture strength test values were obtained in the Vita Enamic material (Class 2, 439.60 ±136; Class 3, 340 ±98 N) (P>.05) for both preparation design test groups.
A statistically significant difference was not found between the 2 tooth preparation classifications. However, significant differences were observed among the test groups in the Class 2 preparation specimens. The Class 2 preparation design exhibited a higher number of irreparable failures.
内冠修复体的预备设计和制作材料直接影响其临床成功率,然而,关于特定设计或材料对内冠修复体的生物力学影响的知识尚显匮乏。
本体外和有限元分析研究的目的是评估内冠修复体的生物力学行为。
共收集36颗新鲜拔除的下颌第一磨牙。按照2种不同的预备几何形状对牙齿进行预备:颊壁完整(2类)和无颊壁(3类)。用3种不同制作材料(维他瓷聚合体、GC Cerasmart和Lava Ultimate)制作的内冠修复这些牙齿。为分析体外断裂强度,将粘结好的内冠在万能试验机上施加200 N的斜向力直至修复体断裂。采用有限元分析评估牙本质组织和修复材料上的应力分布。数据采用双向方差分析和Tukey事后检验(α = 0.05)进行分析。
不同预备设计(2类和3类)在断裂强度方面未发现显著差异(P > 0.05)。Lava Ultimate材料的平均±标准差断裂强度值最高(2类,606.20 ± 293;3类,659.40 ± 226 N)(P > 0.05),但在两种预备设计测试组中,维他瓷聚合体材料的断裂强度测试值最低(2类,439.60 ± 136;3类,340 ± 98 N)(P > 0.05)。
两种牙齿预备分类之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。然而,在2类预备样本的测试组之间观察到显著差异。2类预备设计表现出更多无法修复的失败情况。