The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Analysis of Marginal Fit and Fracture Resistance in CAD-CAM Lithium Disilicate and Pre-processed Composite Endocrowns: An In Vitro Study

Manorama Vijay Singh, Hasan Sarfaraz, Stephan lampl, Deepak Mehta, Deepa Gurunathan

Keywords : Endocrown materials, Fracture strength, Marginal adaptation, Preparation design

Citation Information : Singh MV, Sarfaraz H, lampl S, Mehta D, Gurunathan D. Comparative Analysis of Marginal Fit and Fracture Resistance in CAD-CAM Lithium Disilicate and Pre-processed Composite Endocrowns: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):732-739.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3749

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and background: This study aimed to determine the optimal finish line and material criteria for optimal marginal fit and fracture resistance in endocrowns. The impact of two preparation designs on endocrowns made from computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) lithium disilicate and pre-processed CAD/CAM composite was compared. Materials and methods: In a randomized 3-arm trial involving 42 mandibular molars, two marginal configurations (with and without chamfer finish lines) were evaluated for each material group. Marginal fit was assessed pre- and post-cementation using scanning electron microscope, and fracture resistance was tested with a universal testing machine. Student t-test was used to compare within group differences and ANOVA with Tukey test was used to compare intergroup differences. The significance level was set at 0.05. Results: Edelweiss CAD/CAM blocks demonstrated the least marginal gap pre- and post-cementation, and superior fracture resistance compared to lithium disilicate and HIPC composite resin. Finish lines significantly affected marginal adaptation in all groups. Fracture resistance differences between designs within the same group were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The CAD/CAM composite proved effective for endocrown restorations, with finish lines impacting marginal adaptation but not fracture resistance. Edelweiss CAD/CAM blocks showed superior performance in both aspects, suggesting their suitability for such restorations. Clinical significance: The study highlights the clinical significance of using Edelweiss CAD/CAM blocks for endocrown restorations, demonstrating superior marginal fit and fracture resistance. Clinicians can enhance restoration longevity by selecting appropriate materials and preparation designs, particularly the use of finish lines, to optimize marginal adaptation without compromising fracture resistance.

PDF Share
  1. Sevimli G, Cengiz S, Oruc MS. Endocrowns: review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2015;49(2):57–63. DOI: 10.17096/jiufd.71363.
  2. Ansari SH, Alfaqeeh AA, Buryk AA, et al. Indications and success rate of endo crowns--A systematic review. J Evolution Med Dent Sci 2020;9(43):3247–3252. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2020/712.
  3. Bao XD. [Advantages and disadvantages of endocrown restorations of endodontically treated teeth with large coronal destruction]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2018;53(4):221–225. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.1002-0098.2018.04.002.
  4. Contrepois M, Soenen A, Bartala M, et al. Marginal adaptation of ceramic crowns: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2013;110(6):447–454.e10. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.003.
  5. Sirous S, Navadeh A, Ebrahimgol S, et al. Effect of preparation design on marginal adaptation and fracture strength of ceramic occlusal veneers: A systematic review. Clin Exp Dent Res 2022;8(6):1391–1403. DOI: 10.1002/cre2.653.
  6. Gavelis JR, Morency JD, Riley ED, et al. The effect of various finish line preparations on the marginal seal and occlusal seat of full crown preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45(2):138–145. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90330-9.
  7. Ruse ND, Sadoun MJ. Resin-composite blocks for dental CAD/CAM applications. J Dent Res 2014;93(12):1232–1234. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514553976.
  8. Magne P, Schlichting LH, Maia HP, et al. In vitro fatigue resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic posterior occlusal veneers. J Prosthet Dent 2010;104(3):149–157. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60111-4.
  9. Bitter K, Kielbassa AM. Post-endodontic restorations with adhesively luted fiber-reinforced composite post systems: A review. Am J Dent 2007;20(6):353–360. PMID: 18269124.
  10. Kanat-Ertürk B, Saridağ S, Köseler E, et al. Fracture strengths of endocrown restorations fabricated with different preparation depths and CAD/CAM materials. Dent Mater J 2018;37(2):256–265. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2017-035.
  11. Zou Y, Bai J, Xiang J. Clinical performance of CAD/CAM-fabricated monolithic zirconia endocrowns on molars with extensive coronal loss of substance. Int J Comput Dent 2018;21(3):225–232. PMID: 30264051.
  12. Otto T, Mörmann WH. Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramic posterior shoulder crowns and endocrowns up to 12 years. Int J Comput Dent 2015;18(2):147–161. PMID: 26110927.
  13. Bajraktarova-Valjakova E, Korunoska-Stevkovska V, Kapusevska B, et al. Contemporary dental ceramic materials, a review: Chemical composition, physical and mechanical properties, indications for use. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2018;6(9):1742–1755. DOI: 10.3889/oamjms.2018.378.
  14. Pissis P. Fabrication of a metal-free ceramic restoration utilizing the monobloc technique. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995;7(5):83–94. PMID: 7548896.
  15. Einhorn M, DuVall N, Wajdowicz M, et al. Preparation ferrule design effect on endocrown failure resistance. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):e237–e242. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12671.
  16. Taha D, Spintzyk S, Schille C, et al. Fracture resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown restorations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness. J Prosthodont Res 2018;62(3):293–297. DOI: 10.1016/j.jpor.2017.11.003.
  17. Haralur SB, Alamrey AA, Alshehri SA, et al. Effect of different preparation designs and all ceramic materials on fracture strength of molar endocrowns. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater 2020;18:2280800020947329. DOI: 10.1177/2280800020947329.
  18. Zheng Z, Sun J, Jiang L, et al. Influence of margin design and restorative material on the stress distribution of endocrowns: A 3D finite element analysis. BMC Oral Health 2022;22(1):30. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-022-02063-y.
  19. Mostafavi AS, Allahyari S, Niakan S, et al. Effect of preparation design on marginal integrity and fracture resistance of endocrowns: A systematic review. Front Dent 2022;19:37. DOI: 10.18502/fid.v19i37.11250.
  20. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL de O da, da Silva AF, et al. Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;52:8–14. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.005.
  21. El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and micro leakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent 2015;40(2):201–210. DOI: 10.2341/13-143-L.
  22. Altier M, Erol F, Yildirim G, et al. Fracture resistance and failure modes of lithium disilicate or composite endocrowns. Niger J Clin Pract 2018;21(7):821–826. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_175_17.
  23. Halıcı SE, Hekimoğlu C, Ersoy O. Marginal fit of all-ceramic crowns before and after cementation: An in vitro study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2018;38(3):e41–e48. DOI: 10.11607/prd.3169.
  24. Al-Akhali M, Chaar MS, Elsayed A, et al. Fracture resistance of ceramic and polymer-based occlusal veneer restorations. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;74:245–250. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.013.
  25. Ewadh AM, Jasim HH. The influence of different CAD/CAM materials on the marginal fit of endocrown with different cavity depths (A comparative in-vitro study). Materials Today Proceedings 2022;61(5):695–699. DOI: 10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.261.
  26. AL-Zomur S, Abo-Madina M, Hassouna M. Influence of different marginal preparation designs and materials on the marginal integrity and internal adaptation of endocrown restorations. Egyptian Dental Journal 2021;67(4):3491–3500. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.85048.1710.
  27. Sieper K, Wille S, Kern M. Fracture strength of lithium disilicate crowns compared to polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network and zirconia reinforced lithium silicate crowns. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2017;74:342–348. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2017.06.025.
  28. Godil AZ, Kazi AI, Wadwan SA, et al. Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of endocrowns using lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone computer-aided design – computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(2):190–194. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_547_20.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.