Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of the restorative technique on load-bearing capacity, cusp deflection, and stress distribution of endodontically-treated premolars with MOD restoration

  • da Rocha, Daniel Maranha (Departament of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe) ;
  • Tribst, Joao Paulo Mendes (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Ausiello, Pietro (Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatological Sciences, School of Dentistry, University of Naples Federico II) ;
  • Dal Piva, Amanda Maria de Oliveira (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Rocha, Milena Cerqueira da (Departament of Dentistry, Federal University of Sergipe) ;
  • Di Nicolo, Rebeca (Department of Pediatric and Social Dentistry, Sao Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology) ;
  • Borges, Alexandre Luiz Souto (Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, Sao Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2019.05.07
  • Accepted : 2019.07.21
  • Published : 2019.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of the restorative technique on the mechanical response of endodontically-treated upper premolars with mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity. Materials and Methods: Forty-eight premolars received MOD preparation (4 groups, n = 12) with different restorative techniques: glass ionomer cement + composite resin (the GIC group), a metallic post + composite resin (the MP group), a fiberglass post + composite resin (the FGP group), or no endodontic treatment + restoration with composite resin (the CR group). Cusp strain and load-bearing capacity were evaluated. One-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test were used with ${\alpha}=5%$. Finite element analysis (FEA) was used to calculate displacement and tensile stress for the teeth and restorations. Results: MP showed the highest cusp (p = 0.027) deflection ($24.28{\pm}5.09{\mu}m/{\mu}m$), followed by FGP ($20.61{\pm}5.05{\mu}m/{\mu}m$), CR ($17.62{\pm}7.00{\mu}m/{\mu}m$), and GIC ($17.62{\pm}7.00{\mu}m/{\mu}m$). For load-bearing, CR ($38.89{\pm}3.24N$) showed the highest, followed by GIC ($37.51{\pm}6.69N$), FGP ($29.80{\pm}10.03N$), and MP ($18.41{\pm}4.15N$) (p = 0.001) value. FEA showed similar behavior in the restorations in all groups, while MP showed the highest stress concentration in the tooth and post. Conclusions: There is no mechanical advantage in using intraradicular posts for endodontically-treated premolars requiring MOD restoration. Filling the pulp chamber with GIC and restoring the tooth with only CR showed the most promising results for cusp deflection, failure load, and stress distribution.

Keywords

References

  1. Popescu SM, Diaconu OA, Scrieciu M, Marinescu IR, Draghici EC, Trusca AG, Banica AC, Vatu M, MercuT V. Root fractures: epidemiological, clinical and radiographic aspects. Rom J Morphol Embryol 2017;58:501-506.
  2. Bastone EB, Freer TJ, McNamara JR. Epidemiology of dental trauma: a review of the literature. Aust Dent J 2000;45:2-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2000.tb00234.x
  3. Rho YJ, Namgung C, Jin BH, Lim BS, Cho BH. Longevity of direct restorations in stress-bearing posterior cavities: a retrospective study. Oper Dent 2013;38:572-582. https://doi.org/10.2341/12-432-C
  4. Tribst JP, Dal Piva AM, Borges AL, Bottino MA. Simulation of mouthguard use in preventing dental injuries caused by different impacts in sports activities. Sport Sci Health 2019;15:85-90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11332-018-0488-4
  5. Teixeira ES, Rizzante FA, Ishikiriama SK, Mondelli J, Furuse AY, Mondelli RF, Bombonatti JF. Fracture strength of the remaining dental structure after different cavity preparation designs. Gen Dent 2016;64:33-36.
  6. Laske M, Opdam NJ, Bronkhorst EM, Braspenning JC, Huysmans MC. Risk factors for dental restoration survival: a practice-based study. J Dent Res 2019;98:414-422. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022034519827566
  7. Mergulhao VA, de Mendonca LS, de Albuquerque MS, Braz R. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different methods. Oper Dent 2019;44:E1-E11. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-262-L
  8. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010;36:609-617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.002
  9. de Andrade GS, Tribst JP, Dal Piva AO, Bottino MA, Borges AL, Valandro LF, Ozcan M. A study on stress distribution to cement layer and root dentin for post and cores made of CAD/CAM materials with different elasticity modulus in the absence of ferrule. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11:e1-e8.
  10. Dal Piva AM, Tribst JP, Borges AL, Bottino MA, Souza RO. Do mechanical advantages exist in relining fiber posts with composite prior to its cementation? J Adhes Dent 2018;20:511-518.
  11. da Fonseca GF, de Andrade GS, Dal Piva AM, Tribst JP, Borges AL. Computer-aided design finite element modeling of different approaches to rehabilitate endodontically treated teeth. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2018;18:329-335. https://doi.org/10.4103/jips.jips_168_18
  12. Barcellos RR, Correia DP, Farina AP, Mesquita MF, Ferraz CC, Cecchin D. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with intra-radicular post: the effects of post system and dentine thickness. J Biomech 2013;46:2572-2577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.016
  13. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL, Rengo S. 3D-finite element analyses of cusp movements in a human upper premolar, restored with adhesive resin-based composites. J Biomech 2001;34:1269-1277. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0021-9290(01)00098-7
  14. Srivastava B, Devi NN, Gupta N, Singh R. Comparative evaluation of various temperature changes on stress distribution in class II mesial-occlusal-distal preparation restored with different restorative materials: a finite element analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2018;11:167-170. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1505
  15. Lee MR, Cho BH, Son HH, Um CM, Lee IB. Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restoration. Dent Mater 2007;23:288-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.025
  16. Nothdurft FP, Seidel E, Gebhart F, Naumann M, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR. The fracture behavior of premolar teeth with class II cavities restored by both direct composite restorations and endodontic post systems. J Dent 2008;36:444-449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.004
  17. Nothdurft FP, Seidel E, Gebhart F, Naumann M, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR. Influence of endodontic posts on the fracture behavior of crowned premolars with Class II cavities. J Dent 2008;36:287-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.01.007
  18. Hofmann N, Just N, Haller B, Hugo B, Klaiber B. The effect of glass ionomer cement or composite resin bases on restoration of cuspal stiffness of endodontically treated premolars in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 1998;2:77-83. https://doi.org/10.1007/s007840050049
  19. Ausiello PP, Ciaramella S, Lanzotti A, Ventre M, Borges AL, Tribst JP, Dal Piva A, Garcia-Godoy F. Mechanical behavior of Class I cavities restored by different material combinations under loading and polymerization shrinkage stress. A 3D-FEA study. Am J Dent 2019;32:55-60.
  20. Costa VL, Tribst JP, Uemura ES, de Morais DC, Borges AL. Influence of thickness and incisal extension of indirect veneers on the biomechanical behavior of maxillary canine teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2018;43:e48. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e48
  21. Sousa MP, Tribst JP, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Borges AL, de Oliveira S, da Cruz PC. Capacity to maintain placement torque at removal, single load-to-failure, and stress concentration of straight and angled abutments. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2019;39:213-218. https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.3998
  22. Costa VL, Tribst JP, Borges AL. Influence of the occlusal contacts in formation of Abfraction Lesions in the upper premolar. Braz Dent Sci 2017;20:115-123. https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2017.v20i4.1484
  23. Tribst JP, Dal Piva AM, Borges AL. Biomechanical behavior of indirect composite materials: a 3D-FEA study. Braz Dent Sci 2017;20:52-57.
  24. Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Martorelli M, Lanzotti A, Gloria A, Watts DC. CAD-FE modeling and analysis of class II restorations incorporating resin-composite, glass ionomer and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 2017;33:1456-1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.010
  25. Monteiro JB, Dal Piva AM, Tribst JP, Borges AL, Tango RN. The effect of resection angle on stress distribution after root-end surgery. Iran Endod J 2018;13:188-194. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v13i2.19089
  26. Gloria A, Maietta S, Richetta M, Ausiello P, Martorelli M. Metal posts and the effect of material-shape combination on the mechanical behavior of endodontically treated anterior teeth. Metals (Basel) 2019;9:125. https://doi.org/10.3390/met9020125
  27. Menezes-Silva R, Velasco SR, Bastos RS, Molina G, Honorio HM, Frencken JE, Navarro MF. Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months. Clin Oral Investig 2019 Jan 6. doi: 10.1007/s00784-018-2787-1. [Epub ahead of print].
  28. Kim ME, Park SH. Comparison of premolar cuspal deflection in bulk or in incremental composite restoration methods. Oper Dent 2011;36:326-334. https://doi.org/10.2341/10-315-L
  29. Braga S, Oliveira L, Rodrigues RB, Bicalho AA, Novais VR, Armstrong S, Soares CJ. The effects of cavity preparation and composite resin on bond strength and stress distribution using the microtensile bond test. Oper Dent 2018;43:81-89. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-338-L
  30. Santos SS, Delbem AC, Moraes JC, Souza JA, Oliveira LQ, Pedrini D. Resin-modified glass ionomer containing calcium glycerophosphate: physico-mechanical properties and enamel demineralization. J Appl Oral Sci 2019;27:e20180188. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-7757-2018-0188
  31. Jones G, Taylor G. Glass ionomer or composite resin for primary molars. Evid Based Dent 2018;19:86-87. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401328
  32. Wang X, Shu X, Zhang Y, Yang B, Jian Y, Zhao K. Evaluation of fiber posts vs metal posts for restoring severely damaged endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Quintessence Int 2019;50:8-20.
  33. Elsharkasi MM, Platt JA, Cook NB, Yassen GH, Matis BA. Cuspal deflection in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill resin-based composite materials. Oper Dent 2018;43:E1-E9. https://doi.org/10.2341/16-072-L
  34. Yarmohamadi E, Jahromi PR, Akbarzadeh M. Comparison of cuspal deflection and microleakage of premolar teeth restored with three restorative materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018;19:684-689. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2320
  35. Tribst JP, Kohn BM, de Oliveira Dal Piva AM, Spinola MS, Borges AL, Andreatta Filho OD. Influence of restoration thickness on the stress distribution of ultrathin ceramic onlay rehabilitating canine guidance: a 3D-finite element analysis. Minerva Stomatol 2019;68:126-131.
  36. Heikkinen TT, Matinlinna JP, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Long term water storage deteriorates bonding of composite resin to alumina and zirconia short communication. Open Dent J 2013;7:123-125. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210601307010123
  37. Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Fabianelli A, Gloria A, Martorelli M, Lanzotti A, Watts DC. Mechanical behavior of bulk direct composite versus block composite and lithium disilicate indirect Class II restorations by CAD-FEM modeling. Dent Mater 2017;33:690-701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.03.014

Cited by

  1. Effect of Fiber-Reinforced Composite and Elastic Post on the Fracture Resistance of Premolars with Root Canal Treatment-An In Vitro Pilot Study vol.10, pp.21, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app10217616
  2. Effect of Shrinking and No Shrinking Dentine and Enamel Replacing Materials in Posterior Restoration: A 3D-FEA Study vol.11, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/app11052215
  3. The use of different adhesive filling material and mass combinations to restore class II cavities under loading and shrinkage effects: a 3D-FEA vol.24, pp.5, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1080/10255842.2020.1836168
  4. Computer Aided Design Modelling and Finite Element Analysis of Premolar Proximal Cavities Restored with Resin Composites vol.14, pp.9, 2021, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14092366
  5. Stress Concentration of Endodontically Treated Molars Restored with Transfixed Glass Fiber Post: 3D-Finite Element Analysis vol.14, pp.15, 2019, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14154249
  6. Biomechanical Analysis of a Custom-Made Mouthguard Reinforced With Different Elastic Modulus Laminates During a Simulated Maxillofacial Trauma vol.14, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1177/1943387520980237