Farklı Seramikler ile Hazırlanan Endokron Restorasyonların Bağlanma Dayanımlarının Değerlendirilmesi: İn Vitro Çalışma

Year 2024, Volume: 5 Issue: 2, 436 - 449, 27.08.2024

Müberra Güney , Zeynep Yeşil

https://doi.org/10.58605/bingolsaglik.1457884

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmada, farklı seramikler ile hazırlanan endokron restorasyonların bağlanma dayanımları değerlendirildi.
Materyal ve Metod: Çalışma 21 adet çekilmiş daimi alt molar diş üzerinde yürütüldü. Kök kanal tedavileri tamamlanan dişlerin endokron restorasyon için preparasyonları yapıldı. Bilgisayar Destekli Tasarım/ Bilgisayar Destekli Üretim (CAD/CAM) tekniği ile üç farklı seramikten (Cerasmart (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Upcera (UP-CAD, Guandong, China), CeltraDuo (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany)) endokron restorasyonlar hazırlandı. Endokron restorasyonlar, rezin siman (Maxcem Elite) ile simante edildikten sonra her birinden bölgesel (apikal, orta ve koronal) olarak alınan 63 kesit rastgele olarak üç gruba (n = 7) ayrıldı. Örneklerin bağlanma dayanımları push-out testi kullanılarak universal test cihazında değerlendirildi. Elde edilen veriler; Jamovi 2.2.5 programı (The Jamovi Project, Sydney, Avustralya) kullanılarak iki yönlü varyans analizi ve Tukey çoklu karşılaştırma testi ile p˂0.05 anlamlılık düzeyinde incelendi.
Bulgular: Kullanılan materyalin ve kesit alınan bölgenin istatistiksel olarak anlamlı (p<0,001) olduğu belirlendi. Değerlendirilen her bir bölgede lityum disilikat ile güçlendirilmiş cam seramik (Upcera) ile rezin nano seramik (Cerasmart) materyalleri arasında anlamlı fark saptanmaz iken (p>0,05), her iki materyalin Celtraduo’dan anlamlı şekilde daha fazla (p<0.05) bağlanma dayanımı gösterdiği belirlendi.
Sonuç: Bağlanma dayanımı üzerine materyallerin içeriğinin etkili olduğu belirlendi.

Keywords

Bağlanma dayanımı, Endokron, Farklı seramikler

Supporting Institution

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniv BAP

Project Number

TDH-2022-1369

Thanks

Recep Tayyip Erdoğan Üniv BAP

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Endocronal Restorations Prepared with Different Ceramics: In Vitro Study

Abstract

Aim: In this study, the bond strength of endocrown restorations prepared with different ceramics was evaluated.
Material and Method: The study was conducted on 21 extracted permanent lower molar teeth. Teeth whose root canal treatments were completed were prepared for endocrown restoration. Endocron restorations made of three different ceramics (Cerasmart (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Upcera (UP-CAD, Guandong, China), CeltraDuo (Dentsply Sirona, Bensheim, Germany)) with Computer Aided Design/Computer Aided Manufacturing (CAD/CAM) technique prepared. After the endocrown restorations were cemented with resin cement (Maxcem Elite Kerr), 63 sections were taken locally (apical, middle and coronal) and they were randomly divided into 3 groups (n=7). The bond strength of the samples was examined on a universal testing device using the push-out test. The data obtained; It was evaluated at the p˂0.05 significance level by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's multiple comparison test using the Jamovi 2.2.5 program (The Jamovi Project, Sydney, Australia).
Results: It was determined that the material used and the sectioned area were statistically significant (p<0.001). While no significant difference was detected between lithium disilicate-reinforced glass ceramic (Upcera) and resin nanoceramic (Cerasmart) materials in each evaluated region (p>0.05), both materials showed significantly higher binding (p<0.05) than Celtraduo. It was determined that it showed durability.
Conclusion: It was determined that the content of the materials was effective on the bond strength.

Keywords

Different Ceramics, Endocrown, Bond Strength

Project Number

TDH-2022-1369

References

• Ree M, Schwartz RS. The endo-restorative interface: current concepts. Dental Clinics. 2010, 54 (2):345-74.
• Biacchi GR, Mello B, Basting RT. The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013;25(6):383-90.
• El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):201-10.
• Fages M, Bennasar B. The endocrown: a different type of all-ceramic reconstruction for molars. J Can Dent Assoc. 2013;79:d140.
• Liebermann A, Wimmer T, Schmidlin PR, Scherer H, Löffler P, Roos M, Stawarczyk B. Physicomechanical characterization of polyetheretherketone and current esthetic dental CAD/CAM polymers after aging in different storage media. J Prosthet Dent. 2016, 115(3):321-8.e322.
• Gueth J-F, Zuch T, Zwinge S, Engels J, Stimmelmayr M, Edelhoff D. Optical properties of manually and CAD/CAM-fabricated polymers. Dent Mater J. 2013, 32(6):865-71.
• Yenice N, Büyükdere AK. CAD/CAM Sistemlerinde kullanılan tam seramik bloklar ve endikasyonlar. Dent Med J-Review. 2020;2(1):1-15.
• Kılınıç H, Turgut S, Ayaz EA, Bağış B. Güncel nanoseramik ve hibrit CAD/CAM materyalleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2018;28(4):592-8.
• D’arcangelo C, Vanini L, Rondoni GD, De Angelis F. Wear properties of dental ceramics and porcelains compared with human enamel. J Prosthet Dent. 2016, 115(3):350-5.
• Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 2010;36(4):609-17.
• Soares CJ, Rodrigues MdP, Faria-e-Silva AL, Santos-Filho PCF, Veríssimo C, Kim H-C, Versluis A. How biomechanics can affect the endodontic treated teeth and their restorative procedures? Braz Oral Res. 2018, 32(Supll 1):e76.
• Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod. 2007;33(4):391-8.
• Biacchi G, Basting R. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent. 2012; 37(2):130-6.
• El Ghoul W, Salameh Z. Marginal and Internal Adaptation of Lithium Disilicate Endocrowns Fabricated By Heat‐Pressable and Subtractive Techniques. J Prosthodont. 2021;30(6):509-14.
• Gresnigt MM, Özcan M, van den Houten ML, Schipper L, Cune MS. 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):607-14.
• Chitmongkolsuk S, Heydecke G, Stappert C, Strub JR. Fracture strength of all-ceramic lithium disilicate and porcelain-fused-to-metal bridges for molar replacement after dynamic loading. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2002;10(1):15-22.
• Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78(1):5-9.
• Yassen GH, Platt JA, Hara AT. Bovine teeth as substitute for human teeth in dental research: a review of literature. J Oral Sci. 2011;53(3):273-82.
• Dejak B, Młotkowski A. Strength comparison of anterior teeth restored with ceramic endocrowns vs custom-made post and cores. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(2):171-6.
• Forberger N, Göhring TN. Influence of the type of post and core on in vitro marginal continuity, fracture resistance, and fracture mode of lithia disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;100(4):264-73.
• Chang C-Y, Kuo J-S, Lin Y-S, Chang Y-H. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns. J Dent Sci. 2009;4(3):110-7.
• Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater. 2010;26(2):e38-e49.
• 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):219-24.
• Skupien J, Luz M, Pereira-Cenci T. Ferrule effect: a meta-analysis. JDR Clin & Trans Res. 2016;1(1):31-39.
• Sedrez-Porto JA, da Rosa WLdO, da Silva AF, Münchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T. Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent. 2016;52:8-14.
• Mörmann WH, Bindl A, Lüthy H, Rathke A. Effects of preparation and luting system on all-ceramic computer-generated crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1998;11(4):333-9.
• El Ghoul WA, Özcan M, Ounsi H, Tohme H, Salameh Z. Effect of different CAD-CAM materials on the marginal and internal adaptation of endocrown restorations: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(1):128-34.
• Taha D, Spintzyk S, Schille C, Sabet A, Wahsh M, Salah T, Geis-Gerstorfer J. Fracture resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown restorations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness. J Prosthodont Res. 2018;62(3):293-7.
• Gregor L, Bouillaguet S, Onisor I, Ardu S, Krejci I, Rocca GT. Microhardness of light-and dual-polymerizable luting resins polymerized through 7.5-mm-thick endocrowns. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;112(4):942-8.
• Dartora NR, de Conto Ferreira MB, Moris ICM, Brazão EH, Spazin AO, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva-Sousa YT, Gomes EA. Effect of intracoronal depth of teeth restored with endocrowns on fracture resistance: in vitro and 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Endod. 2018;44(7):1179-85.
• Hayes A, Duvall N, Wajdowicz M, Roberts H. Effect of endocrown pulp chamber extension depth on molar fracture resistance. Oper Dent. 2017;42(3):327-34.
• Zhang Y, Lai H, Meng Q, Gong Q, Tong Z. The synergetic effect of pulp chamber extension depth and occlusal thickness on stress distribution of molar endocrowns: a 3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Mater Sci: Mater Med. 2022;33(56):2-10.
• Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Morphological measurements of anatomic landmarks in human maxillary and mandibular molar pulp chambers. J Endod. 2004;30(6):388-90.
• Tribst JPM, Dal Piva AMdO, Madruga CFL, Valera MC, Borges ALS, Bresciani E, de Melo RM. Endocrown restorations: Influence of dental remnant and restorative material on stress distribution. Dent Mater. 2018;34(10):1466-73.
• Magne P, Paranhos MPG, Burnett Jr LH, Magne M, Belser UC. Fatigue resistance and failure mode of novel‐design anterior single‐tooth implant restorations: influence of material selection for type III veneers bonded to zirconia abutments. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2011; 22(2):195-200.
• Tribst JPM, Lo Giudice R, Dos Santos AFC, Borges ALS, Silva-Concílio LR, Amaral M, Lo Giudice G. Lithium disilicate ceramic endocrown biomechanical response according to different pulp chamber extension angles and filling materials. Mater (Basel). 2021;14(5):1307.
• El-Meliegy E, van Noort R, El-Meliegy E, van Noort R. Design and raw materials of medical glasses. Glasses and Glass Ceramics for Medical Applications. 2012:95-106.
• Shafi MA, Rayyan MR. Failure loads of heat-pressed versus milled lithium disilicate endocrowns. Clin Oral Investig. 2023:27(1):339-44.
• Zhu J, Wang D, Rong Q, Qian J, Wang X. Effect of central retainer shape and abduction angle during preparation of teeth on dentin and cement layer stress distributions in endocrown-restored mandibular molars. Dent Mater J. 2020:39(3);464-70.
• Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(2):199-202.
• Rocca GT, Sedlakova P, Saratti CM, Sedlacek R, Gregor L, Rizcalla N, Feilzer A, Krejci I. Fatigue behavior of resin-modified monolithic CAD–CAM RNC crowns and endocrowns. Dent Mater. 2016;32:e338-e350.
• Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM. Mechanical properties of zirconia reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic. Dent Mater. 2016;32(7):908-14.
• Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(4):587-93.
• Vargas MA, Bergeron C, Diaz-Arnold A. Cementing all-ceramic restorations: recommendations for success. J Am Dent Assoc. 2011, 142(Suppl 2):20S-24S.
• Benetti AR, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Pallesen U, Franco EB. Influence of curing rate on softening in ethanol, degree of conversion, and wear of resin composite. Am J Dent. 2011;24(2):115-8.
• Lindberg A, Peutzfeldt A, van Dijken JW. Effect of power density of curing unit, exposure duration, and light guide distance on composite depth of cure. Clin Oral Investig. 2005;9(2):71-6.
• Faria-e-Silva AL, Casselli DSM, Lima GS, Ogliari FA, Piva E, Martins LRM. Kinetics of conversion of two dual-cured adhesive systems. J Endod. 2008;34(9):1115-8.
• Piwowarczyk A, Lauer H-C, Sorensen JA. In vitro shear bond strength of cementing agents to fixed prosthodontic restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92(3):265-73.
• Goracci C, Grandini S, Bossù M, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. Laboratory assessment of the retentive potential of adhesive posts: a review. J Dent. 2007;35(11):827-35.
• Watanabe L. Variables influence on shear bond strength testing to dentin. Advanced adhesive dentistry, 3rd International Kuraray Symposium, 1999; 1999: Kuraray Co. Ltd.
• Drummond J, Sakaguchi R, Racean D, Wozny J, Steinberg A. Testing mode and surface treatment effects on dentin bonding. J Biomed Mater Res: An Official J Soci Biomater Japanese Soci Biomater. 1996;32(4):533-41.
• de Meloa RM, Galhanoa GÁP, Barbosaa SH, Valandrob LF, Pavanellic CA, Bottinoc MA. Effect of adhesive system type and tooth region on the bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2008;10(2):127-33.
• Collares F, Portella F, Rodrigues S, Celeste R, Leitune V, Samuel S. The influence of methodological variables on the push‐out resistance to dislodgement of root filling materials: a meta‐regression analysis. Int Endod J. 2016;49(9):836-49.
• Özcan M, Volpato CAM. Current perspectives on dental adhesion:(3) Adhesion to intraradicular dentin: Concepts and applications. Jpn Dent Sci Rev. 2020;56(1):216-23.
• Li X, An B, Zhang D. Determination of elastic and plastic mechanical properties of dentin based on experimental and numerical studies. Appl Mathematics Mech. 2015;36:1347-58.
• Arola DD, Reprogel RK. Tubule orientation and the fatigue strength of human dentin. Biomater. 2006, 27(9):2131-40.