Finite Element Analysis of Endocrowns and Post-and-Core Abutments for Removable Partial Dentures with Different Framework Materials

Ünsal, Gökçe Soğanci; Yusufoğlu, Selen İnce

doi:10.11607/ijp.7269

Cited by 3 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eight studies evaluated the stress distribution in dentin with four of them showing lower stress concentration in supporting tooth structures restored with ED in comparison to PCC 27,29,35,36 and other 4 showing lower stresses with PCC 14,16,21,34 . One study showed that stresses generated by ED were lower than that caused by CC 21 .…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The FEA showed high divergence in the stress distribution in remaining tooth structure, luting agent, and restorative material, challenging any conclusive interpretation from such data. Studies showed a tendency for lower stress distribution at restorative material in endocrowns for molars 26,32 and premolars, 27,29,32 and also lower stresses at luting agent using endocrowns for premolars. 16,35,36 Results from stresses at remaining tooth structure could not provide any tendency for molars, premolars, or anterior teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12,13,20,22 Two studies observed most favorable failure patterns for PCC, 8,16 while other two analyses observed most favorable failure patterns for ED. 11,14 Eight studies evaluated the stress distribution in dentin with four of them showing lower stress concentration in supporting tooth structures restored with ED in comparison to PCC 27,29,35,36 and other 4 showing lower stresses with PCC. 14,16,21,34 One study showed that stresses generated by ED were lower than that caused by CC.…”

Section: Data Extracted For Premolarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The assessment of the biomechanical performance based on laboratory 22–26 and finite element analyses (FEA) studies 27–36 on severely damaged, endodontically treated teeth restorations also aimed to improve the knowledge on this topic. However, it seems there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment option.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4,11 The endocrown technique has showed adequate load-to-failure, marginal adaptation, adhesion to dental tissues, and it can be a single-session procedure, which are attractive features for the clinical practice. 10,20,21 The assessment of the biomechanical performance based on laboratory [22][23][24][25][26] and finite element analyses (FEA) studies [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36] on severely damaged, endodontically treated teeth restorations also aimed to improve the knowledge on this topic. However, it seems there is no consensus on the most appropriate treatment option.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical performance of endocrown and core‐crown restorations: A systematic review

Lenz

Bacchi²,

Bona

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess and compare, through a systematic review of the literature, the biomechanical performance of endocrowns and traditional core‐crowns (with and without intracanal post) for the rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with severe coronal structure damage.Materials and MethodsA systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In‐vitro studies comparing endocrowns with (post‐)core‐crown restorations were selected and screened by two independent reviewers. The included studies were submitted to the risk of bias analysis using the RoBDEMAT tool and the biomechanical outcomes were collected for qualitative analysis. The extracted data were presented based on comparative analyses among the included studies.ResultsThirty‐one studies were included: 9 studies evaluated restorations of molars, 14 for premolars, and 8 studies evaluated anterior restorations. For the majority of the studies, endocrowns showed either similar or greater survival rates under fatigue and monotonic load than (post‐)core‐crown restorations, irrespectively of the tooth. The endocrowns showed more favorable failure patterns than (post‐)core‐crowns, irrespectively of the tooth. Endocrowns produced lower stresses in the restorative material for molars and premolars and in the luting material for premolars than (post‐)core‐crown restorations. The included studies presented adequate information for most items of the RoBDEMAT risk of bias tool.ConclusionEndocrowns showed similar or greater biomechanical performance than the traditional (post‐)core‐crown restorations in most of the evaluated studies.Clinical SignificanceThis systematic review showed that endocrowns present either similar or greater biomechanical performance than core‐crown restorations for anterior and posterior endodontically treated teeth with severe structural damage.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Data Extracted For Premolarsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Biomechanical performance of endocrown and core‐crown restorations: A systematic review

Lenz

Bacchi²,

Bona

2023

J Esthet Restor Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Evaluation of polyaryletherketone materials as post-core abutments for removable partial dentures: A finite element analysis

Yagci,

Eraslan,

Esim

2024

Dental Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effect of different framework materials on stresses induced in distal extension removable partial dentures: A strain gauge analysis

Fahmy,

Al‐Afandy,

Mohamed

et al. 2024

Journal of Prosthodontics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PurposeEvaluation of the strain transmitted to the abutments and residual ridge by polyetherketoneketone material compared to the cobalt‐chromium one in distal extension removable partial dentures (RPDs) to fulfill the objective of preservation of the supporting structures.Materials and MethodsA virtual model simulating a Kennedy class I partially edentulous mandibular arch was designed. Two models, one for each group, were printed. Five RPDs were made in each group. In group CR, the framework was milled from a cobalt‐chromium alloy. While in group PK, it was milled from a polyetherketoneketone blank. Strain gauge rosettes were bonded distal to the last abutment and posteriorly in the distal end of the residual ridge. Unilateral vertical and oblique loadings were applied. Mann‐Whitney U test was used for inter‐group comparisons while the Friedman test was used for intra‐group comparisons and corrected by Wilcoxon Signed‐Rank Sum. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.ResultsDuring unilateral vertical load application, a statistically significant difference was found between both groups distal to the abutment in the loaded and unloaded sides as well as the residual ridge on the unloaded side. During oblique load application, a statistically significant difference was found between both groups in all slots.ConclusionPolyetherketoneketone material induces less stress on the abutments and more stress on the residual ridges compared to the cobalt‐chromium ones. Therefore, it may be recommended for weak abutments supporting RPDs.

show abstract

Finite Element Analysis of Endocrowns and Post-and-Core Abutments for Removable Partial Dentures with Different Framework Materials

Cited by 3 publications

References 0 publications

Biomechanical performance of endocrown and core‐crown restorations: A systematic review

Biomechanical performance of endocrown and core‐crown restorations: A systematic review

Evaluation of polyaryletherketone materials as post-core abutments for removable partial dentures: A finite element analysis

Effect of different framework materials on stresses induced in distal extension removable partial dentures: A strain gauge analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About