Stiffness of Endodontically-treated Teeth Related to Restoration Technique

Reeh, Ernest S.; Douglas, William H.; Messer, HH

doi:10.1177/00220345890680111401

Cited by 167 publications

(149 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

140

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In Case of Paradigm MZ the results could be transferable to Lava TM Ultimate (3M Espe, Seefeld, Germany) due to the similar mechanical properties like Youngs modulus. Ceramic restorations provide a higher modulus of elasticity that reduces deformation of the tooth and therefore deformations at the margin of the restoration [73].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES: This study aims to evaluate the effect of a minimally invasive mesial-occlusaldistal (mod) preparation on the marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays with the aim of saving sound dental substance. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II mod cavities were prepared in 50 extracted human molars and randomly allocated to five groups (n = 10). In all groups, the mesialproximal box margins were located in the dentin, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), while the distal box margins were 1 mm above the CEJ. In groups A and B, conventional standard preparations with a divergent angle of = 6°were prepared. In groups C, D, and E, minimally invasive standard preparations with a convergent angle of = 10°were prepared. In groups A and D, composite inlays and, in groups B and C, ceramic inlays were fabricated (chairside economical restoration of esthetic ceramics (CEREC)) and adhesively inserted. In group E, a direct composite filling using the incremental technique was placed. Replicas were taken before and after thermomechanical loading (1,200,000 cycles, 50/5°C, max. load 49 N). Marginal integrity (tooth-luting composite, luting composite-inlay) was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (×200). The percentage of continuous margins in the different locations was compared between and within groups before and after cycling, using ANOVA and Scheffé post hoc test. RESULTS: After the thermomechanical loading, no significant differences were observed between the different groups with respect to the interface of luting composite-inlay. At the interface of toothluting composite for preparations involving the dentin, groups A and B behaved significantly better compared to the control group E, which in turn were not different to groups C and D. CONCLUSION: Composite and ceramic inlays inserted in minimally invasive prepared mod cavities result in margins not different from those of inlays placed in conventional mod preparations. Direct composite filling margins, however, were inferior to those attained by conventional indirect restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Minimally invasive preparations for mod inlays with undercuts show marginal adaptation equal to that of conventional inlay preparation design. Keywords: Composite inlay, ceramic inlay; minimally-invasive; marginal adaption Declaration of interests:The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest. AbstractObjectives To evaluate the effect of a minimally-invasive mod-preparation on the marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays with the aim of saving sound dental substance. Materials and MethodsClass II mod-cavities were prepared in 50 extracted human molars and randomly allocated to five groups (n=10). In all groups, the mesial-proximal-box-margins were located in dentin, 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), while the distal-boxmargins were 1 mm above the CEJ. In group A and B, conventional standard preparations with a divergent angle of α = 6° were prepared. In Group C, D and E minimally invasive standard preparation...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The important role of loss of the marginal ridges in reducing fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth was also reported in other studies. 3,7,[32][33][34] In the current study, cuspal reinforcement using bonded composite restoration can partially compensate for the compromised fracture resistance. 18,21 However, adhesive restoration alone is not capable of restoring fracture resistance to the level seen in intact posterior teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…3,4 Numerous studies have reported a high incidence of fracture in endodontically treated maxillary premolars. 2,5,6 Susceptibility to fracture is the result of the loss of marginal ridges and the pulp chamber roof during access preparation 2,7,8 and is a concern, particularly in maxillary premolars, because their anatomy facilitates separation of the cusps during mastication. 9 Fractures in the unsupported tooth structure can lead to restorative difficulties and even extraction if the tooth is unrestorable.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fracture Resistance of Cuspal Coverage of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Combined Composite-Amalgam Compared to Other Techniques

Shafıei¹,

Memarpour²,

Karimi³

2011

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Combined composite-amalgam for cuspal coverage of endodontically treated premolars was similar to direct composite coverage in strengthening restored teeth; however, composite onlay had the highest fracture resistance. SUMMARYThis in vitro study investigated the fracture resistance of teeth restored with combined composite-amalgam for cuspal coverage compared to direct coverage with composite (with or without an amalgam base) and composite onlay. Seventy-two intact maxillary premolars were randomly divided into six groups (n¼12). The two control groups were G1, intact teeth (negative control), and G2, mesio-occlusodistal preparation only (positive control). Each of the four experimental groups used a different type of restoration for the prepared teeth: G3, direct composite cusp coverage; G4, composite onlay; G5, direct composite coverage with an amalgam base; and G6, combined compositeamalgam cuspal coverage. After thermocycling, fracture strength was tested. The data were analyzed with analysis of variance and the least significant differences post hoc tests (a¼0.05). Mean fracture resistance in the six

show abstract

“…Overall stress distribution within the tooth/restoration complex is determined by geometry and hard tissue/restorative material arrangement. 27 As demonstrated by Reeh et al, 28 non-destructive approaches, rather than experimental load-to-failure, may be the best approach to determining significant differences in stress distribution. Non-destructive approaches can provide greater insight into the performance of both tooth and restorative materials but may require complex modeling tools such as the finite element (FE) method.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Stress distribution of inlay-anchored adhesive fixed partial dentures: A finite element analysis of the influence of restorative materials and abutment preparation design

Magne

Perakis

Belser

et al. 2002

The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY VOLUME 87 NUMBER 5have proven their clinical reliability in combination with the metal-ceramic technique. 1,2 The advent of metal-free restorative materials, however, has led to the use of indirect composite or ceramic fixed partial dentures (FPDs) as an alternative to conventional metal-ceramic AFPDs. Better bonding properties to composite cements, more appropriate biomechanical behavior, and enhanced esthetics are expected with the use of composite or ceramic compared to metal alloys. alternative to conventional metal-ceramic adhesive fixed partial dentures (AFPDs). Little information about the adequate restorative material and tooth preparation design for inlay-anchored AFPDs is available to the clinician.Purpose. The purposes of this simulation study were: (1) to use 2-dimensional finite element modeling to simulate stresses at the surface and interface of 3-unit posterior AFPDs made with 6 different restorative materials, and (2) to investigate the influence of 3 different abutment preparation configurations on the stress distribution within the tooth/restoration complex. Material and methods.A mesio-distal cross-section of a 3-unit AFPD was digitized and used to create 2-dimensional models of the periodontal membrane, supporting bone, different restorative materials (gold, alumina, zirconia, glass-ceramic, composite, and fiber-reinforced composite), and different abutment preparation configurations (interproximal slots vs. 2-surface [MO, DO] vs. 3-surface [MOD]). A simulated 50-N vertical occlusal load was applied to the standardized pontic element. The principal stress within the restorative materials, stresses at the tooth/restoration interface, and surface tangential stresses at the level of the pontic were calculated in MPa from the postprocessing files and compared to each other.Results. All materials and tooth preparation design exhibited a similar stress pattern, with a definite compressive area at the occlusal side of the pontic, a tensile zone at the gingival portion of the pontic, and tensile stress peaks in the abutment/pontic connection areas. Among isotropic materials, standard non-reinforced composites exhibited better stress transfer and reduced tensile stresses at the adhesive interface than ceramics and gold. Optimized placement of the glass fibers within the composite resulted in similar stress distribution when tested in 2-surface abutment preparation configuration. There was no detectable influence of preparation design on the behavior of the pontic area. Among all 3 preparation designs, only the DO design exhibited almost pure compression at the interface. Conclusion.

show abstract

Stiffness of Endodontically-treated Teeth Related to Restoration Technique

Cited by 167 publications

References 19 publications

Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities

Marginal adaptation of ceramic and composite inlays in minimally invasive mod cavities

Fracture Resistance of Cuspal Coverage of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Combined Composite-Amalgam Compared to Other Techniques

Stress distribution of inlay-anchored adhesive fixed partial dentures: A finite element analysis of the influence of restorative materials and abutment preparation design

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About