The fracture strength and the failure mode of lithium disilicate or resin nano ceramics as a crown, overlay, or endocrown restoration on endodontically treated teeth

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionDifferent materials and restorative concepts have been proposed over the years to restore endodontically treated teeth (ETT). Monolithic ceramic and composite restoration can be lute to the tooh, without the use of a post. However, little is known how the material stiffness and presence of a composite core will affect the survival and failure mode.The objective of this in‐vitro study was to evaluate the fracture strength and failure mode of endodontically treated molars, restored with ceramic or hybrid composite monolithic restoration, in the presence of absence of a composite core.Materials and MethodsSixty depulped molars were restored with a lithium‐disilicate (e.max CAD) or hybrid composite (Cerasmart) restoration. Both materials were used in a monolithic approach, but with 3 different designs: (a) monolithic endocrown, (b) crown with a separate composite core, and (c) overlay without core buildup or pulpal extension. Ten sound teeth were used as control group. All groups were thermocycled (10,000 cycles), subsequently loaded in a chewing simulator (100,000 cycles) and finally loaded until fracture.ResultsPeak fracture loads and failure modes were registered. No significant differences were seen between the groups in terms of fracture load. Failure modes were statistically significantly different among groups with significant correlation between restoration type and material. (p < 0.001 and p = 0.033, respectively). No group presented significantly higher fracture resistance. Although ceramic crowns and overlays presented the highest repairability, all restored ETT were within the range of the intact tooth' fracture strength.ConclusionNo restoration presented significant different fracture loads. However, the type of restoration and material choice were correlated to the fracture mode.