Diogo Pedrollo Lise1, Annelies Van Ende2, Jan De Munck3, Thaís Yumi Umeda Suzuki4, Luiz Clovis Cardoso Vieira5, Bart Van Meerbeek6. 1. KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Department of Oral Health Sciences, BIOMAT & University Hospitals Leuven (UZ Leuven), Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium; Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Department of Operative Dentistry, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. Electronic address: diogolise@hotmail.com. 2. KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Department of Oral Health Sciences, BIOMAT & University Hospitals Leuven (UZ Leuven), Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: annelies.vanende@gmail.com. 3. KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Department of Oral Health Sciences, BIOMAT & University Hospitals Leuven (UZ Leuven), Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: jan.demunck@kuleuven.be. 4. KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Department of Oral Health Sciences, BIOMAT & University Hospitals Leuven (UZ Leuven), Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium; Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araçatuba, Brazil. Electronic address: tha.suzuki@gmail.com. 5. Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC), Department of Operative Dentistry, Florianópolis, SC, Brazil. 6. KU Leuven (University of Leuven), Department of Oral Health Sciences, BIOMAT & University Hospitals Leuven (UZ Leuven), Dentistry, Leuven, Belgium. Electronic address: bart.vanmeerbeek@uzleuven.be.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of restoration design ('2.5-mm deep endocrown', '5-mm deep endocrown' or '5-mm deep post&crown') and CAD/CAM material type (composite or lithium disilicate glass-ceramic) on the load-to-failure of endodontically treated premolars in absence of any ferrule. METHODS: The crowns of 48 single-rooted premolars were cut and the roots were endodontically treated. Teeth were randomly divided into six groups (n=8); teeth in each group were restored using one of the two tested materials with standardized CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns (with either 2.5-mm or 5-mm deep intra-radicular extension) or conventional crowns (5-mm deep post&crown). After cementation using luting composite, the specimens were immersed in distilled water and subjected to 1,200,000 chewing cycles with a load of 50N applied parallel to the long axis of the tooth (0°). After cyclic loading, a compressive load was applied at 45° to the tooth's long axis using a universal testing machine until failure. Load-to-failure was recorded (N) and the specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope with 3.5x magnification to determine the mode of failure. RESULTS: All specimens survived the 1,200,000 chewing cycles. A significant interaction between restoration design and CAD/CAM material was found using two-way ANOVA. In the '2.5-mm deep endocrown' groups, the composite achieved a significantly higher load-to-failure than the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, while no differences between materials were found in the '5-mm deep endocrown' and '5-mm deep post&crown' groups. More unfavorable failures (root fractures) were observed for higher load-to-failure values. CONCLUSIONS: Only following a '2.5-mm deep endocrown' design, composite appeared more favorable than lithium disilicate glass-ceramic as crown material; this may be explained by their difference in elastic modulus. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Shallow endocrown preparations on premolars present less surface for adhesive luting and a difference in crown material becomes apparent in terms of load-to-failure. The use of a more flexible composite crown material appeared then a better option.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effect of restoration design ('2.5-mm deep endocrown', '5-mm deep endocrown' or '5-mm deep post&crown') and CAD/CAM material type (composite or lithium disilicate glass-ceramic) on the load-to-failure of endodontically treated premolars in absence of any ferrule. METHODS: The crowns of 48 single-rooted premolars were cut and the roots were endodontically treated. Teeth were randomly divided into six groups (n=8); teeth in each group were restored using one of the two tested materials with standardized CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns (with either 2.5-mm or 5-mm deep intra-radicular extension) or conventional crowns (5-mm deep post&crown). After cementation using luting composite, the specimens were immersed in distilled water and subjected to 1,200,000 chewing cycles with a load of 50N applied parallel to the long axis of the tooth (0°). After cyclic loading, a compressive load was applied at 45° to the tooth's long axis using a universal testing machine until failure. Load-to-failure was recorded (N) and the specimens were examined under a stereomicroscope with 3.5x magnification to determine the mode of failure. RESULTS: All specimens survived the 1,200,000 chewing cycles. A significant interaction between restoration design and CAD/CAM material was found using two-way ANOVA. In the '2.5-mm deep endocrown' groups, the composite achieved a significantly higher load-to-failure than the lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, while no differences between materials were found in the '5-mm deep endocrown' and '5-mm deep post&crown' groups. More unfavorable failures (root fractures) were observed for higher load-to-failure values. CONCLUSIONS: Only following a '2.5-mm deep endocrown' design, composite appeared more favorable than lithium disilicate glass-ceramic as crown material; this may be explained by their difference in elastic modulus. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Shallow endocrown preparations on premolars present less surface for adhesive luting and a difference in crown material becomes apparent in terms of load-to-failure. The use of a more flexible composite crown material appeared then a better option.