The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 9 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles


Influence of Restoration Height and Masticatory Load Orientation on Ceramic Endocrowns

Gabriela F da Fonseca, Amanda MO Dal Piva, João PM Tribst, Alexandre LS Borges

Keywords : Dental restoration failure, Dental stress analysis, Finite element analysis

Citation Information : Fonseca GF, Piva AM, Tribst JP, Borges AL. Influence of Restoration Height and Masticatory Load Orientation on Ceramic Endocrowns. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (9):1052-1057.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2380

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-04-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; The Author(s).


Aim: Endocrown restorations are an alternative to restore endodontically treated teeth. Due to the fact that in the literature it is recommended a remnant of 1.5 mm, different heights of endocrown were elaborated and analyzed, obtaining possible faults and their location. This study aimed to evaluate the mechanism of stress distribution in the tooth/restoration set, varying two factors: “restoration height”—three levels, and load application—two levels (oblique or axial), totaling six groups. Materials and methods: For finite element analysis (FEA), a maxillary premolar was modeled with an endodontic treatment. Then, this template was triplicated and each copy received an endocrown restoration of different heights: G6 (4.5 mm), G7 (5.5 mm), and G8 (6.5 mm). The models were exported in STEP format to analysis software (ANSYS 17.2, ANSYS Inc.). During preprocessing, the solids were considered isotropic, linearly elastic, and homogeneous. Initially, a load (300 N) was axially applied in the central fossa region. For a second evaluation, an oblique load (300 N) was applied on the grinding slope of functional cusp. System fixation occurred at the base of polyurethane cylinder. Results were evaluated through maximum principal stress (MPS). Results: For axial load, lower stress values were generated in all groups. For oblique load, G8 showed a higher stress concentration in the cement layer and root dentin. Conclusion: When an endocrown restoration is performed, there is a tendency of failure in the cement line and in the root directly proportional to its size. However, regardless of the size of the element to be reconstituted, the axial direction of the masticatory loads tends to decrease stress concentration. Clinical significance: When performing an endocrown restoration, care must be taken with its high regardless the tooth remnant high, altering even the anatomical angulations of the occlusal face, when necessary, to avoid stress concentration in thick areas.

PDF Share
  1. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Münchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016 Sep;52:8-14.
  2. Pedrollo Lise D, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Umeda Suzuki TY, Cardoso Vieira LC, Van Meerbeek B. Biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolars using different preparation designs and CAD/CAM materials. J Dent 2017 Apr;59:54-61.
  3. Magne P, Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, Anderson RE, Maia HP, Giannini M. Influence of no-ferrule and no-post buildup design on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent 2014 Nov-Dec;39(6):595-602.
  4. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pai CA. Evaluation of failure risks in ceramic restorations for endodontically treated premolar with MOD preparation. Dent Mater 2011 May;27(5):431-438.
  5. Hayes A, Duvall N, Wajdowicz M, Roberts H. Effect of endocrown pulp chamber extension depth on molar fracture resistance. Oper Dent 2017 May-Jun;42(3):327-334.
  6. da Cunha LF, Mondelli J, Auersvald CM, Gonzaga CC, Mondelli RF, Correr GM, Furuse AY. Endocrown with leucitereinforced ceramic: case of restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Case Rep Dent 2015 Oct;2015:750313.
  7. Carlos RB, Nainan MT, Pradhan S, Sharma R, Benjamin S, Rose R. Restoration of endodontically treated molars using all ceramic endocrowns. Case Rep Dent 2013 Dec;2013: 210763.
  8. Steinmassl PA, Klaunzer F, Steinmassl O, Dumfahrt H, Grunert I. Evaluation of currently available CAD/CAM denture systems. Int J Prosthodont 2017 Mar-Apr;30(2): 116-122.
  9. Bankoðlu Güngör M, Turhan Bal B, Yilmaz H, Aydin C, Karakoca Nemli S. Fracture strength of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate and resin nano ceramic restorations used for endodontically treated teeth. Dent Mater J 2017 Mar;36(2):135-141.
  10. Denry I, Kelly JR. Emerging ceramic-based materials for dentistry. J Dent Res 2014 Dec;93(12):1235-1242.
  11. Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater 2016 Jul;32(7):908-914.
  12. Aktas G, Yerlikaya H, Akca K. Mechanical failure of endocrowns manufactured with different ceramic materials: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Prosthodont 2016 Apr;27(4):340-346.
  13. Guo J, Wang Z, Li X, Sun C, Gao E, Li H. A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber postcore retained conventional crowns. J Adv Prosthodont 2016 Dec;8(6):489-493.
  14. Zhu J, Rong Q, Wang X, Gao X. Influence of remaining tooth structure and restorative material type on stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars: a finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2017 May;117(5):646-655.
  15. Santoro M, Ayoub ME, Pardi VA, Cangialosi TJ. Mesiodistal crown dimensions and tooth size discrepancy of the permanent dentition of dominican Americans. Angle Orthod 2000 Aug;70(4):303-307.
  16. Costa AK, Xavier TA, Paes-Junior TJ, Andretta-Filho OD, Borges AL. Influence of occlusal contact area on cusp deflection and stress distribution. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014 Nov-Dec;15(6):699-704.
  17. Dal Piva AM, Tribst JP, Souza RO, Borges AL. Influence of alveolar bone loss and cement layer thickness on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary incisors: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Endod 2017 May;43(5):791-795.
  18. Kelly JR, Benetti P. Ceramic materials in dentistry: historical evolution and current practice. Aust Dent J 2011 Jun;56(Suppl 1): 84-96.
  19. Ramos Nde C, Campos TM, Paz IS, Machado JP, Bottino MA, Cesar PF, Melo RM. Microstructure characterization and SCG of newly engineered dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2016 Jul;32(7):870-878.
  20. Soares CJ, Raposo LH, Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Menezes MS, Soares PB, Magalhães D. Effect of different cements on the biomechanical behavior of teeth restored with cast dowel-and-cores-in vitro and FEA analysis. J Prosthodont 2010 Feb;19(2):130-137.
  21. Nakamura T, Wakabayashi K, Kinuta S, Nishida H, Miyamae M, Yatani H. Mechanical properties of new self-adhesive resinbased cement. J Prosthodont Res 2010 Apr;54(2):59-64.
  22. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Apicella D, Valentino B, Ferrari M, Aversa R, Apicella A. Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis. Dent Mater 2006 Nov;22(11):1035-1044.
  23. Singh SV, Bhat M, Gupta S, Sharma D, Satija H, Sharma S. Stress distribution of endodontically treated teeth with titanium alloy post and carbon fiber post with different alveolar bone height: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Eur J Dent 2015 Jul-Sep;9(3):428-432.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.