Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Fracture strengths of endocrown restorations fabricated with different preparation depths and CAD/CAM materials

“…It has also been reported in the literature that the stresses which are accumulated at the interfaces of the different materials with different Fracture strengths of endocrown restorations fabricated with different preparation depths and CAD/CAM materials elasticity moduli may cause increased root fracture risk, which is also reduced in endocrown restorations 18,19) . Sedrez-Porto et al 20) , compared the endocrown and conventional restorations such as post, inlay/onlay, direct composite in the systematic review and meta-analysis including 3 clinical and 5 in vitro studies. The success rate of the endocrowns was reported between 94 and 100% according to 3 clinical trials used in the systematic review.…”

“…The success rate of the endocrowns was reported between 94 and 100% according to 3 clinical trials used in the systematic review. Moreover, according to the in vitro studies, it was stated that there were not statistically significant differences between endocrown and conventional treatments in posterior area, whereas endocrown restorations showed higher fracture strength values than conventional restoration in anterior and posterior areas 20) . Bindl et al 21) also reported that endocrown restoration could be clinically acceptable for molar teeth with 87.1% survival rate, whereas 97.0% survival was observed for classic crowns in 55±15 months followup.…”

Fracture resistance of all‐ceramic crowns based on different preparation designs for restoring endodontically treated molars

“…To provide both an expedient coronal seal and definitive cuspal coverage restoration, the endocrown may provide an efficient treatment option. However, Biacchi and colleagues suggested endocrowns are best limited for molar restoration as bicuspids may present with unfavorable mastication force vectors, with Bindl et al further noting that bicuspids have less available bonding surface, greater height to width ratio, and smaller pulp chamber dimensions which all serve to intensify lever force vectors. These reports were recently reinforced by Guo and colleagues who reported that endocrowns displayed no advantage compared to conventional methods of restoring endodontically treated mandibular bicuspids.…”

“…For the restoration of endodontically treated teeth, CAD/CAM advocates emphasize the “endocrown” method, which consists of a merged crown and core unit adhesively bonded into the pulp chamber and the remaining tooth structure . The endocrown method is said to provide a more conservative option to traditional post and core restorative strategies while providing equitable results . Dejak and Młotkowski using an in silico finite element analysis reported that under simulated masticatory function the endocrown had lower dentin stress concentration than compared to traditional post and core methods.…”

“…Accordingly, the endocrown has been evaluated with recent longer‐duration studies relating positive clinical outcomes . A recent systematic review suggested that endocrowns may perform similar to and/or better than conventional treatments involving intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, or inlay/onlay restorations . However, those authors cautioned the need for further studies as the systematic review conclusions were based only on three clinical trials and five in vitro studies .…”