STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Cavity preparations have routinely been associated with decreased fracture strength of restored teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of endodontic treatment and thermal cycling on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic or composite resin inlay restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred sound, maxillary premolars were selected. Twenty intact teeth served as a control group. Eighty teeth were prepared with MOD cavity preparations; half of them were also endodontically treated. Inlay restorations were prepared with composite resin (Filtek Z250) or feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur Alpha). Half of the specimens for each group were submitted to thermal cycling (500 cycles, between 5 and 55 degrees C, dwell time of 30 seconds). The specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading using a steel ball. Data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Except for those teeth restored with ceramic without endodontic treatment and thermal cycling, no other group achieved fracture strength similar to sound teeth. Ceramic and composite resin restorations provided similar resistance to fracture. There was a significant interaction between endodontic therapy and thermal cycling (P<.001). In the nonthermal cycled groups, endodontically treated teeth showed significantly lower fracture resistance (P<.001). All experimental groups had similar fracture strength when submitted to thermal cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Both restorative techniques provided similar fracture resistance. Endodontic treatment decreased the fracture resistance of nonthermal cycled specimens, while thermal cycling decreased the fracture resistance of nonendodontically treated specimens.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Cavity preparations have routinely been associated with decreased fracture strength of restored teeth. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of endodontic treatment and thermal cycling on the fracture resistance of teeth restored with ceramic or composite resin inlay restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred sound, maxillary premolars were selected. Twenty intact teeth served as a control group. Eighty teeth were prepared with MOD cavity preparations; half of them were also endodontically treated. Inlay restorations were prepared with composite resin (Filtek Z250) or feldspathic ceramic (Vitadur Alpha). Half of the specimens for each group were submitted to thermal cycling (500 cycles, between 5 and 55 degrees C, dwell time of 30 seconds). The specimens were subjected to compressive axial loading using a steel ball. Data were analyzed using 3-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's test (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Except for those teeth restored with ceramic without endodontic treatment and thermal cycling, no other group achieved fracture strength similar to sound teeth. Ceramic and composite resin restorations provided similar resistance to fracture. There was a significant interaction between endodontic therapy and thermal cycling (P<.001). In the nonthermal cycled groups, endodontically treated teeth showed significantly lower fracture resistance (P<.001). All experimental groups had similar fracture strength when submitted to thermal cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Both restorative techniques provided similar fracture resistance. Endodontic treatment decreased the fracture resistance of nonthermal cycled specimens, while thermal cycling decreased the fracture resistance of nonendodontically treated specimens.