This study aimed to compare in vitro micro‐shear bond strength (μSBS) of three different endodontic tricalcium silicate‐based materials in contact with a bulk‐fill resin‐based composite. Thirty cylindrical resin blocks with a hole in the centre (2 mm in depth and 4 mm in diameter) were manufactured with a 3D printer and divided into three groups (n = 10), depending on the calcium silicate cement used: light curing TheraCal LC (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA), liquid–powder NeoMTA 2 (NuSmile Avalon Biomed, Bradenton, FL, USA) and putty NeoPutty (NuSmile, Houston, TX, USA). Each sample was stored for 24 h at 37°C and 100% humidity. Then, after adhesive placement, the restorative material Filtek bulk‐fill (3 M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) was placed over the capping material using cylindrical plastic capsules (2 mm height and 2 mm) and polymerised for 20 s. Specimens were then tested in a universal testing machine for the compression load resulting in the μSBS. The data were compared with the one‐way ANOVA (Welch) and the Tamhane test. The mean value was significantly higher in the TheraCal LC group than in the other two groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between NeoMTA 2 and NeoPutty groups (p > 0.05). The majority of failure modes for all groups were cohesive within biomaterial. Using TheraCal LC in the pulp capping procedure can result in higher bond strength values to the tested bulk‐fill resin‐based composite than NeoMTA 2 and NeoPutty.

This study aimed to evaluate the shaping ability of XP‐endo Shaper, TruNatomy and EdgeFile X3 during the preparation of resin‐printed mandibular molar mesial root canals. Thirty‐three resin‐based mandibular mesial roots with two canals, obtained from extracted tooth cone‐beam computed tomography (CBCT) image and printed on a three‐dimensional (3D) printer, were divided into three experimental groups according to the different nickel–titanium (NiTi) systems used for root canal preparation. The specimens were scanned using CBCT imaging before and after root canal preparation. Then images were registered using a dedicated software and changes in the canal area, volume, untouched canal surface and the maximum and minimum dentine wall wear were calculated. The XP‐endo Shaper instruments showed improved shaping ability with lower untouched root canal surface and better preservation of root canal anatomy during the preparation of resin‐printed mandibular mesial root canals compared with TruNatomy and EdgeFile X3 systems.

Aim: Post-core restorations have been developed to restore and re-functionalize endodontically treated teeth. Today, post-core materials used to show stress distribution similar to a solid tooth are still being researched. This study aimed to compare the von Mises stress (σvm) distributions created by the Zirconium post (ZP), Titanium post (TP), and Glass Fiber post (GFP) materials in the permanent maxillary central incisor using finite element stress analysis (FEA). Methodology: A permanent maxillary central incisor tooth scanned using microcomputed tomography (µCT) was reconstructed, and a three-dimensional model was created. To these models, ZP, TP, and GFP were applied. Composite resin was modeled as the core structure and ceramic crown as the superstructure. Using FEA, 100 N static force was applied in three directions with vertical (F1-0°), oblique (F2-45°), and horizontal (F3-90°) angles to the models whose restoration was completed. As a result of the applied forces, the stresses on the dentine model (Dm), post model (Pm), and the cement model in between the dentine and the post (Cm) were compared. Results: The maximum von Mises stress (σvm max) distribution under F1 for Dm was: ZP = 6,07888 MPa, TP = 6,35719 MPa and GFP = 6,81946 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F2 for Dm was: ZP = 26,6542 MPa, TP = 27,3694 MPa, and GFP = 28,4495 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F3 for Dm was: ZP = 34,7371 MPa, TP = 34,9828 MPa, and GFP = 35,287 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F1 for Pm was: ZP = 17,0361 MPa, TP = 13,1567 MPa, and GFP = 7,85452 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F2 for Pm was: ZP = 73,7999 MPa, TP = 52,0089 MPa, and GFP = 25,9903 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F3 for Pm was: ZP = 78,8934 MPa, TP = 55,0424 MPa, and GFP = 27,1787 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F1 for Cm was: ZP = 7,95074 MPa, TP = 6,66092 MPa, and GFP = 4,60832 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F2 for Cm was: ZP = 16,8296 MPa, TP = 16,8514 MPa, and GFP = 16,526 MPa. The σvm max distribution under the force F3 for Cm was: ZP = 17, 5577 MPa, TP = 16,891 MPa, and GFP = 16,5209 MPa. Conclusion: In all three forces, the highest σvm max was at ZP, and the least was at GFP. ZP and TP accumulated forces internally rather than transmitting them to the tooth tissue. GFP distributed the forces more homogeneously to the dentine.   How to cite this article: Yeniçeri Özata M, Adıgüzel Ö, Falakaloğlu S. Evaluation of stress distribution in maxillary central incisor restored with different post materials: A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on micro-CT data. Int Dent Res 2021;11(3):149-57. https://doi.org/10.5577/intdentres.2021.vol11.no3.3   Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Introduction This study aimed to compare the micro-shear bond strength (µSBS) performances of two resin-based calcium silicate-based cement (CSC) (TheraCal PT and TheraCal LC), Biodentine, and two modified-MTA CSC materials (NeoMTA 2 and BioMTA+) to bulk-fill restorative material. Materials and Methods Fifty 3D printed cylindrical resin blocks with a central hole were used (2 mm in depth and 4 mm in diameter). CSCs were placed in the holes (per each group n = 10) and incubated for 24 h. Cylindrical polyethylene molds (2 mm in height and diameter) were used to place the bulk-fill restorative materials on the CSCs and polymerize for 20 s. Then, all specimens were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C at a humidity of 100%. Specimen’s µSBSs were determined with a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA (Welch) and Tamhane test. Results Statistically higher µSBS was found for TheraCal PT (29.91 ± 6.13 MPa) (p < 0.05) respect to all the other materials tested. TheraCal LC (20.23 ± 6.32 MPa) (p > 0.05) reported higher µSBS than NeoMTA 2 (11.49 ± 5.78 MPa) and BioMTA+ (6.45 ± 1.89 MPa) (p < 0.05). There was no statistical difference among TheraCal LC, NeoMTA 2 and Biodentine (15.23 ± 7.37 MPa) and between NeoMTA 2 and BioMTA+ (p > 0.05). Conclusion Choosing TheraCal PT as the pulp capping material may increase the adhesion and µSBS to the bulk-fill composite superstructure and sealing ability.