Effect of different endodontic access preparations on the biomechanical behavior of lithium disilicate and resin nanoceramic onlay restorations: An in vitro and 3D finite element analysis study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

The effect of different sizes of endodontic access preparations on the performance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and resin nanoceramic onlay restorations is unclear.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this in vitro and 3D finite element analysis study was to assess the effect of a conservative endodontic access cavity and a traditional endodontic access cavity on the fracture resistance and stress distribution of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic and resin nanoceramic onlays.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty caries-free human mandibular molars were anatomically prepared for onlays and divided into 6 groups. After restoration with a lithium disilicate glass-ceramic (N=30) or resin nanoceramic (N=30), each material was further divided into traditional or conservative endodontic access cavity or intact tooth groups. After endodontic therapy and thermocycling, all specimens were submitted to a cycle fatigue test and then loaded until fracture. Failure type and location after debonding or fracture were classified and recorded. Furthermore, stress distribution in the 6 models was analyzed by using a finite element analysis software program. The data were compared by using a 2-way ANOVA test and the Tukey post hoc test (α=.05). The Weibull modulus and Weibull failure probabilities were also estimated for each group.

RESULTS

The lithium disilicate glass-ceramic onlays had lower fracture resistance values than the resin nanoceramic onlays in both the traditional and conservative endodontic access cavity groups (P<.05). The fracture resistance of the 2 materials for onlays with endodontic access was significantly lower than that for the intact restorations (P<.05). No significant difference was found between the fracture resistance of Lava Ultimate restorations with traditional endodontic access and conservative endodontic access, while the fracture resistance of EMAX restorations with traditional endodontic access was significantly lower than that of restorations with conservative endodontic access (P<.05). A higher percentage of irreparable fractures was found in the 3 resin nanoceramic restoration groups. The von Mises stresses were higher in the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations than in the resin nanoceramic restorations with the same access cavities. The von Mises stresses in the tooth structure were higher with the resin nanoceramic restorations than with the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic restorations with the same access cavities.

CONCLUSIONS

An endodontic access cavity had more influence on the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic onlays than on the resin nanoceramic onlays, and a traditional endodontic access cavity significantly decreased the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic onlays.