Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the fracture resistance of canine teeth restored using TRINIA Endocrowns with three different types of preparations (2, 3, and 4 intracanal preparations).
Materials and methods: Thirty maxillary-extracted canines were collected. All teeth were fixed in orthodontic acrylic resin and decapitated at the level of the proximal cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). After being endodontically treated, specimens were distributed equally between 3 groups (n = 10) with different preparation depths (GT: 2 mm Intraradicular Preparation, GH: 3 mm Intraradicular Preparation, GF: 4 mm Intraradicular Preparation). Thirty TRINIA endocrowns were dry milled. After surface treatment, all endocrowns were bonded to their corresponding roots using Permaflo a dual-cure resin cement. Each specimen was then fixed in the lower part of a universal testing machine with a load cell of 5 KN, at an angle of 45 degrees to the tooth long-axis at 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed. Failure loads were recorded in Newton's. Data were recorded, organized, and statistically investigated.
Results: Shapiro–Wilk tests revealed that the data were not normally distributed. Descriptive statistics revealed a high mean fracture resistance of GH (647 N), then GT (475.6 N), and finally GF (353.9 N). The Kruskal–Wallis test revealed a significant difference that existed between the groups being studied (p = 0.036).
Conclusion: TRINIA endocrowns with intracanal preparations of 2 and 3 mm provide more promising fracture resistance than those with intracanal preparations of 4 mm as a way of treating of root-canal-treated maxillary canines. TRINIA endocrowns (2 and 3 mm intracanal preparations) are as promising as fiber posts and all ceramic crowns in terms of fracture resistance. TRINIA endocrowns with 2 mm intracanal preparations are mostly reparable after failure, but those of 3 and 4 mm are mostly irreparable after failure.
Clinical significance: Modifying endocrowns to have intraradicular projections, simulating Nayyar core, may improve the success and longevity of endocrowns in anterior teeth.
Bindl A, Mörmann WH. Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed Cerec endo-crowns after 2 years–preliminary results. J Adhes Dent 1999;1(3):255–265. PMID: 11725673.
Lander E, Dietschi D. Endocrowns: A clinical report. Quintessence Int 2008;39(2):99–106. PMID: 18560648.
Bernhart J, Bräuning A, Altenburger MJ, et al. Cerec3D endocrowns–two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. Int J Comput Dent 2010;13(2):141–154. PMID: 20648740.
Bindl A, Richter B, Mörmann WH. Survival of ceramic computer-aided design/manufacturing crowns bonded to preparations with reduced macroretention geometry. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18(3):219–224. PMID: 15945309.
Lin CL, Chang YH, Chang CY, et al. Finite element and Weibull analyses to estimate failure risks in the ceramic endocrown and classical crown for endodontically treated maxillary premolar. Eur J Oral Sci 2010;118(1):87–93. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.2009.00704.x.
Dejak B, Młotkowski A. 3D-Finite element analysis of molars restored with endocrowns and posts during masticatory simulation. Dent Mater 2013;29(12):e309–e317. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.09.014.
Gresnigt MM, Özcan M, van den Houten ML, et al. Fracture strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces. Dent Mater 2016;32(5):607–614. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.01.004.
Papalexopoulos D, Samartzi TK, Sarafianou A. A thorough analysis of the endocrown restoration: A literature review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(4):422–426. PMID: 34267013.
Sevimli G, Cengiz S, Oruc MS. Endocrowns: Review. J Istanb Univ Fac Dent 2015;49(2):57–63. DOI: 10.17096/jiufd.71363.
AlDabeeb DS, Alakeel NS, Al Jfshar RM, et al. Endocrowns: Indications, preparation techniques, and material selection. Cureus 2023;15(12):e49947. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.49947.
Magne P, Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, et al. 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;39(6):595–602. DOI: 10.2341/13-004-L.
Silva GR, Santos-Filho PC, Simamoto-Júnior PC, et al. Effect of post type and restorative techniques on the strain and fracture resistance of flared incisor roots. Braz Dent J 2011;22(3):230–237. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000300009.
D‘Arcangelo C, De Angelis F, Vadini M, et al. Fracture resistance and deflection of pulpless anterior teeth restored with composite or porcelain veneers. J Endod 2010;36(1):153–156. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.036.
El Zhawi H, Kaizer MR, Chughtai A, et al. Polymer infiltrated ceramic network structures for resistance to fatigue fracture and wear. Dent Mater 2016;32(11):1352–1361. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.08.216.
Altitinchi A, Hussein A, Saemundsson S, et al. Anatomic CAD-CAM post-and-core systems: A mastication simulation study. J Prosthet Dent 2022:S0022–3913(22)00513–3. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.08.017.
Jovanović M, Živić M, Milosavljević M. A potential application of materials based on a polymer and CAD/CAM composite resins in prosthetic dentistry. J Prosthodont Res 2021;65(2):137–147. DOI: 10.2186/jpr.JPOR_2019_404.
Rayyan MM, Abdallah J, Segaan LG, et al. Static and fatigue loading of veneered implant-supported fixed dental prostheses. J Prosthodont 2020;29(8):679–685. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13173.
Ayash G, Osman E, Segaan L, et al. Influence of resin cement shade on the color and translucency of zirconia crowns. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(3):e257–e263. DOI: 10.4317/jced.56425.
Ayash GM, Ossman E, Segaan LG, et al. Influence of core color on final shade reproduction of zirconia crown in single central incisor situation– An in vivo study. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(1):e46–e51. DOI:10.4317/medoral.56401.
Joukhadar C, Osman E, Rayyan M, et al. Comparison between different surface treatment methods on shear bond strength of zirconia (in vitro study). J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12(3):e264–e270. DOI: 10.4317/jced.56242.
Thomas RM, Kelly A, Tagiyeva N, et al. Comparing endocrown restorations on permanent molars and premolars: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Br Dent J 2020. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-020-2279-y.
Govare N, Contrepois M. Endocrowns: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2020;123(3):411–418.e9. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.04.009.
Komabayashi T, Ahn C, Zhang S, et al. Chronologic comparison of root dentin moisture in extracted human teeth stored in formalin, sodium azide, and distilled water. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;108(1):e50–e54. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009. 03.022.
Partiyan A, Osman E, Rayyan MM, et al. Fracture resistance of three-unit zirconia fixed partial denture with modified framework. Odontology 2017;105(1):62–67. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-016-0242-9.
Heydecke G, Peters MC. The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):380–386. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123848.
Tian T, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, et al. Aspects of bonding between resin luting cements and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2014;30(7):e147–e162. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.01.017.
Spitznagel FA, Horvath SD, Guess PC, et al. Resin bond to indirect composite and new ceramic/polymer materials: A review of the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent 2014;26(6):382–393. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12100.
Cruzado-Oliva FH, Alarco-La Rosa LF, Vega-Anticona A, et al. Biomechanics of anterior endocrowns with different designs and depths: Study of finite elements. J Clin Exp Dent 2023;15(12): e1016–e1021. DOI: 10.4317/jced.60889.
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.
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.
Li X, Kang T, Zhan D, et al. Biomechanical behavior of endocrowns vs fiber post-core-crown vs cast post-core-crown for the restoration of maxillary central incisors with 1 mm and 2 mm ferrule height: A 3D static linear finite element analysis. Medicine (Baltimore) 2020;99(43):e22648. DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000022648.
Bozkurt DA, Buyukerkmen EB, Terlemez A. Comparison of the pull-out bond strength of endodontically treated anterior teeth with monolithic zirconia endocrown and post-and-core crown restorations. J Oral Sci 2023;65(1):1–5. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.22- 0288.
Ramírez-Sebastià A, Bortolotto T, Cattani-Lorente M, et al. Adhesive restoration of anterior endodontically treated teeth: Influence of post length on fracture strength. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(2):545–554. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-0978-3.