Ormaza FPE, Del VLJ

Language: Spanish
References: 13
Page: 149-154
PDF size: 269.47 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The alternatives of treatment of tooth with excessive wear vary not only by the restoration material but also by the economic and aesthetic value. Among the alternatives there is: conventional crown, endocrown whose main objective is the elaboration of a restorative that avoids the placement of intraconducting posts and endocrown without one axial wall (EPA) that is done when a wall; mesial, distal, vestibular or palatal is absent. Objective: To verify if the (EPA) behaves in the same way as the conventional crown and endocrown when measuring its resistance to tensile strength. Material and methods: 30 premolars were treated endodontically, ten were prepared to receive a conventional crown, 10 for endocrown and 10 for EPA. Tensile strength were performed to obtain the maximum value at which the crowns failed, an ANOVA test was performed to compare the results. Results: When the three types of crowns were subjected to tensile strength, the results obtained were; 3.04 ± 0.55 MPa for the crown, 7.08 ± 1.6 MPa for the endocrown and 6.17 ± 1.12 MPa for the EPA endocrown. Conclusions: There was no significant difference between the endocrown (7.08 MPa) and EPA endocrown (6.17 MPa) becoming an alternative treatment with good prognosis in daily practice.

REFERENCES

1. Zhu Z, Dong XY, He S, Pan X, Tang L. Effect of post placement on the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28 (5): 475-483.

2. Biacchi GR, Mello B, Basting RT. The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013; 25 (6): 383-390.

3. Aktas G, Yerlikaya H, Akca K. Mechanical failure of endocrowns manufactured with different ceramic materials: an in vitro biomechanical study. J Prosthodont. 2018; 27 (4): 340-346.

4. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Munchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016; 52: 8-14.

5. Ramírez-Sebastia A, Bortolotto T, Cattani-Lorente M, Giner L, Roig M, Krejci I. Adhesive restoration of anterior endodontically treated teeth: influence of post length on fracture strength. Clin Oral Investig. 2014; 18 (2): 545-554.

6. Rayyan MR, Alauti RY, Abanmy MA, AlReshaid RM, Bin Ahmad HA. Endocrowns versus post-core retained crowns for restoration of compromised mandibular molars: an in vitro study. Int J Comput Dent. 2019; 22 (1): 39-44.

7. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature--Part 1. Composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007; 38 (9): 733-743.

8. Einhorn M, DuVall N, Wajdowicz M, Brewster J, Roberts H. Preparation ferrule design effect on endocrown failure resistance. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28 (1): e237-e242.

9. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pai CA. Evaluation of failure risks in ceramic restorations for endodontically treated premolar with MOD preparation. Dent Mater. 2011; 27 (5): 431-438.

10. Shillingburg HT. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. fourth edition. UK: Quintessence; 2012.

11. 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 post-core retained conventional crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016; 8 (6): 489-493.

12. Otto T. Computer-aided direct all-ceramic crowns: preliminary 1-year results of a prospective clinical study. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2004; 24 (5): 446-455.

13. Bindl A, Mormann WH. Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed Cerec endo-crowns after 2 years--preliminary results. J Adhes Dent. 1999; 1 (3): 255-265.