Fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated teeth restored using ceramic onlays with or without fiber posts-an ex vivo study.

AIM This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance and fracture modes of ceramic onlay restorations with or without fiber posts in endodontically treated premolars. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty extracted human premolars with similar anatomic features were used in this study. Four groups (n = 10) were treated endodontically. Onlay cavities extended to the buccal and palatal cusps and reached out the endodontic accesses were prepared. Ceramic onlay restorations with or without fiber posts were categorized as Group CO (ceramic onlays without posts), Group COQF (ceramic onlays and quartz fiber posts), and Group COGF (ceramic onlays and glass fiber posts). Positive control group was left as non-restored (Group NR). Ten intact teeth were stored as negative control group (Group IT). Fracture resistance was measured using a universal load-testing machine applying compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1 mm min(-1) until fracture. Fracture resistance and modes were evaluated statistically. RESULTS Ceramic onlay restorations (Groups CO, COQF, COGF) increased the fracture resistance significantly, when compared with non-restored teeth (P < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found in the groups with fiber posts in terms of fracture resistance (P > 0.05). Negative control group (IT) had significantly higher fracture resistance than all others (P < 0.05). Fracture types had significant differences among the groups (P < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of this ex-vivo study, partial coverage with ceramic onlays resulted in a significant improvement of the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. However, insertion of glass or quartz fibers did not increase the fracture resistance significantly.

[1]  R. Sakagami,et al.  Comparison of fracture sites and post lengths in longitudinal root fractures. , 2015, Journal of endodontics.

[2]  J. H. Rubo,et al.  Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber posts of different lengths. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  M. Verma,et al.  Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance under static and fatigue loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with carbon fiber posts, glass fiber posts, and an experimental dentin post system: an in vitro study. , 2013, Journal of endodontics.

[4]  M. Naumann,et al.  Rigid versus flexible dentine-like endodontic posts--clinical testing of a biomechanical concept: seven-year results of a randomized controlled clinical pilot trial on endodontically treated abutment teeth with severe hard tissue loss. , 2012, Journal of endodontics.

[5]  Moustafa N Aboushelib,et al.  Effect of different onlay systems on fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated mandibular molars restored with and without glass fiber posts. , 2010, American journal of dentistry.

[6]  L. P. Vansan,et al.  In vitro fracture resistance of glass-fiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. , 2009, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  C. Kreulen,et al.  In vitro fracture behavior of maxillary premolars with metal crowns and several post-and-core systems. , 2006, European journal of oral sciences.

[8]  F. Tay,et al.  Clinical evaluation of the use of fiber posts and direct resin restorations for endodontically treated teeth. , 2005, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[9]  C. Goracci,et al.  Clinical behavior of translucent-fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study. , 2003, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[10]  M. Gagliani,et al.  Adhesive post-endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. , 2002, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[11]  Begüm Akkayan,et al.  Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[12]  G. Heydecke,et al.  Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[13]  G. Heydecke,et al.  The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: a systematic review. , 2002, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[14]  L. Hahn,et al.  Fracture characteristics of carbon fibre, ceramic and non-palladium endodontic post systems at monotonously increasing loads. , 2002, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[15]  M. Behr,et al.  Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. , 2000, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[16]  F. García-Godoy,et al.  Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. , 2000, American journal of dentistry.

[17]  M. Frank,et al.  A comparison of the microstructure and properties of the IPS Empress 2 and the IPS Empress glass-ceramics. , 2000, Journal of biomedical materials research.

[18]  R. Frankenberger,et al.  IPS Empress inlays and onlays after four years--a clinical study. , 1999, Journal of dentistry.

[19]  J R Kelly,et al.  Clinically relevant approach to failure testing of all-ceramic restorations. , 1999, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[20]  E Asmussen,et al.  Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. , 1999, Journal of dentistry.

[21]  T. Watson,et al.  Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. , 1999, The journal of adhesive dentistry.

[22]  P. Ottl,et al.  Success rates for two different types of post-and-cores. , 1998, Journal of oral rehabilitation.

[23]  J. Astbäck,et al.  A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. , 1998, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[24]  B. Akkayan,et al.  Resistance to fracture of crowned teeth restored with different post systems. , 1998, The European journal of prosthodontics and restorative dentistry.

[25]  A. Goretti,et al.  Adaptation of adhesive posts and cores to dentin after fatigue testing. , 1997, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[26]  P. Vallittu,et al.  A review of fiber-reinforced denture base resins. , 1996, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[27]  Radkevich Ra,et al.  A comparative study of fracture resistance between morphologic dowel and cores and a resin-reinforced dowel system in the intraradicular restoration of structurally compromised roots. , 1996 .

[28]  M. Molin,et al.  A 3-year clinical follow-up study of a ceramic (Optec) inlay system. , 1996, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[29]  A. Goretti,et al.  Evaluation of post and cores in the laboratory: rationale for developing a fatigue test and preliminary results. , 1996, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry. (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995). Supplement.

[30]  F Duret,et al.  Long-life physical property preservation and postendodontic rehabilitation with the Composipost. , 1996, Compendium of continuing education in dentistry. (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995). Supplement.

[31]  M. Georgescu,et al.  Enamel wear caused by three different restorative materials. , 1995, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[32]  R. Loney,et al.  The effect of load angulation on fracture resistance of teeth restored with cast post and cores and crowns. , 1995, The International journal of prosthodontics.

[33]  Libman Wj,et al.  Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. , 1995 .

[34]  P. Hörsted-Bindslev,et al.  A one-year clinical study of indirect and direct composite and ceramic inlays. , 1994, Scandinavian journal of dental research.

[35]  D Assif,et al.  Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. , 1994, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[36]  A. Olofsson,et al.  Three-year comparison of fired ceramic inlays cemented with composite resin or glass ionomer cement. , 1994, Acta odontologica Scandinavica.

[37]  J. Burgess,et al.  The resistance to tensile, compression, and torsional forces provided by four post systems. , 1992, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[38]  J. Stannard,et al.  Strength of roots before and after endodontic treatment and restoration. , 1992, Journal of endodontics.

[39]  F. Burke,et al.  Tooth fracture in vivo and in vitro. , 1992, Journal of dentistry.

[40]  A. J. Goldberg,et al.  The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. , 1992, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[41]  F Lutz,et al.  Clinical evaluation of a new pressed glass ceramic inlay material over 1.5 years. , 1992, Quintessence international.

[42]  I Krejci,et al.  Computer-designed inlays after 5 years in situ: clinical performance and scanning electron microscopic evaluation. , 1992, Quintessence international.

[43]  R. Banks.  Conservative posterior ceramic restorations: a literature review. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[44]  J. Martinoff,et al.  Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. , 1984, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[45]  J. Nicholls,et al.  In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. , 1979, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[46]  M. Pines,et al.  A comparative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth. , 1977, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[47]  A. Caputo,et al.  Pins and posts--why, when and how. , 1976, Dental clinics of North America.