Effect of ceramic materials and tooth preparation design on computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing endocrown adaptation and retentive strength: An in vitro study

Abstract

ObjectivesTo evaluate how various tooth preparation designs impact the adaptation—both at the margins and internally—and the retentive strength of computer‐aided design and computer‐aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) produced endocrowns.Materials and Methods60 extracted human mandibular first molars were endodontically treated and assigned into three groups (n = 20) according to the tooth preparation design: Group N: butt joint design, Group F and F1 received 1‐ and 2‐mm circumferential ferrule preparation, respectively. Endocrowns were milled using either lithium disilicate glass‐ceramic (IPS emax ceramic) or monolithic zirconia. The internal and marginal adaptation of the endocrowns were evaluated using the replica technique. After cementation, the endocrowns of all test groups were dislodged axially at 0.5 mm/min using a universal testing machine. A 2‐way ANOVA and the independent samples t‐test (α = .05) were performed to statistically analyze the data.ResultsThe effect of changing the design of the tooth preparation (butt joint, ferrule) on the marginal and internal gap was shown to be statistically significant (p < .05); the lower gap values were recorded at the axial followed by cervical, marginal, and pulpal floor walls in both ceramic groups regardless of the teeth preparation design. The ANOVA test revealed similar average removal forces and stresses for the two types of tested ceramic materials.ConclusionIPS emax ceramic adapted better than monolithic zirconia ceramic, regardless of the preparation design. Ferrule preparation design is more retentive than butt joint preparation, regardless of the type of ceramic material used.

The Influence of Ferrule Design and Pulpal Extensions on the Accuracy of Fit and the Fracture Resistance of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Endocrowns

“…The endocrowns’ accuracy and adaptation might depend on the tooth type and form; a laboratory study reported that mandibular endocrowns showed better adaptation than maxillary endocrowns [ 32 ]. In terms of endocrown preparation designs, there are several laboratory studies executed to evaluate the effect of endocrown pulpal extensions on fracture resistance [ 33 , 34 ]; others extend the preparation on the axial surface utilizing ferrule preparation [ 17 , 18 , 35 ]. The presence of the ferrule design can improve fracture resistance by acting as a reciprocal support against laterally exerted stresses [ 17 , 18 ].…”