Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials

Emrah Ayna; Burcu Ayman; Cansel Belge

doi:10.61139/ijdor.1640535

Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare microleakage levels and microtensile bond strength (MBS) of lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone (PEEK) endocrown restorations cemented with adhesive resin. Material and Methods: For this study, caries-free human maxillary and mandibular first molars of similar size were selected. Root canal treatment was applied to the teeth and endocrown preparation was made. The restorations were fabricated using CAD/CAM technology and divided into two groups: Group 1: Lithium disilicate (L) and Group 2: PEEK (P). All restorations were cemented using resin cement. Following cementation, the samples were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and subjected to 5000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C. For the microleakage test, the samples were immersed in a 2% methylene blue dye solution for 24 hours and then sectioned using a minitom precision cutting device. Dye penetration depth was evaluated at three levels: restoration-cement interface, within the cement, and cement-tooth interface. For the microtensile test, the samples divided into sections were placed in the micro tension tester and tension was applied until they were separated, the tensile load at which separation occurred was recorded. The microtensile bond strength value was expressed in MPa. Data were analyzed using SPSS Statistics Version 25, employing frequency analysis, Chi-Square tests, and Monte Carlo Simulation. Results: The restoration-cement (0.0077±0.0594) and within-cement (0.0172±0.0386) microleakage levels in the L group were significantly lower than those in the P group (0.8873±1.7631 and 0.0529±0.0794) (p<0.05). No significant difference was found in cement-tooth microleakage between the groups (p>0.05). The MBS of the P group (3.31±1.85) was significantly lower than that of the L group (7.11±2.5) (p<0.05). A statistically significant relationship was observed between the groups and failure types (p<0.05). Conclusions: In this study, lithium disilicate endocrown restorations exhibited less microleakage and higher bond strength compared to PEEK restorations.

Keywords

Supporting Institution

DİŞ.19.015 of the Dicle University Scientific Research Projects Coordination Unit

Project Number

DİŞ.19.015

Ethical Statement

Dicle University Dentistry Faculty Local Ethics Committee dated July 19, 2019, protocol numbered 2019/36.

References

1. Soares CJ, et.al. How biomechanics can affect the endodontic treated teeth and their restorative procedures? Braz. Oral Res. 2018;32(suppl):e76:169-83
2. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Jan;99(1):30-7.
3. Faria ACL, et al. Endodontically treated teeth: characteristics and considerations to restore them. Journal of Prosthodontic Research 2011; 55(2):69-74.
4. Bernhart J, et al. Cerec3D endocrowns--two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars. International Journal of Computerized dentistry 2010; 13(2):141-54.
5. Chang CY, et al. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns. Journal of Dental Sciences 2009; 4(3):110-117.
6. Dejak B, Młotkowski A. 3D-Finite element analysis of molars restored with endocrowns and posts during masticatory simulation. Dental Materials 2013; 29(12):309-17.
7. Tzimas K, et al. Endocrown restorations for extensively damaged posterior teeth: clinical performance of three cases. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 2018; 43(4):38.
8. Shin Y, et al. Evaluation of the marginal and internal discrepancies of CAD-CAM endocrowns with different cavity depths: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2017; 117(1):109-15.

9. Stankiewicz N, Wilson P. The ferrule effect: a literature review. International Endodontic Journal 2002; 35(7):575-81.
10. Höland W, Rheinberger V,VSchweiger M.Control of nucleation in glass ceramics. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 2003;361(1804):575-89.
11. Raigrodski AJ. Contemporary all-ceramic fixed partial dentures: a review. Dental Clinics, 2004; 48(2):531-44.
12. Schaan AG. Documentation S. IPS e. max® CAD. Research and development scientific services. Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein, 2005.
13. Kurtz SM. An overview of PEEK biomaterials. PEEK biomaterials handbook 2012:1-7.
14. Stawarczyk B, et al. Tensile bond strength of veneering resins to PEEK: impact of different adhesives. Dental Materials Journal 2013; 32(3):441-8.
15. El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Operative Dentistry 2015; 40(2):201-10.
16. Guindy JE, Sherif RE, Aboul-Ezz AA, Evaluation of marginal discrepancy and microleakage of lava ultimate (Resin nano ceramic) versus lithium disilicate (Ips e. max cad) endocrowns. in vitro study. Indian Journal of Scientific Research 2016; 7(1):27-34.
17. Stawarczyk B, et al. PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2014;112(5):1278-88.
18. Stawarczyk B, et al. Polyetheretherketone—a suitable material for fixed dental prostheses? Journal of Biomedical Materials Research Part B: Applied Biomaterials 2013; 101(7):1209-16.
19. Uhrenbacher J, et al. The effect of surface modification on the retention strength of polyetheretherketone crowns adhesively bonded to dentin abutments. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2014;112(6):1489-97.
20. Hallmann L, et al. The improvement of adhesive properties of PEEK through different pre-treatments. Applied Surface Science 2012; 258(18):7213-8.
21. Chaijareenont P, et al. Effects of different sulfuric acid etching concentrations on PEEK surface bonding to resin composite. Dental Materials Journal 2018; 37(3):385-92.
22. Tsuka H, et al. Evaluation of shear bond strength between PEEK and resin-based luting material. Journal of Oral Biosciences 2017; 59(4):231-6.
23. Trajtenberg CP, Caram SJ, Kiat-amnuay S. Microleakage of all-ceramic crowns using self-etching resin luting agents. Operative Dentistry 2008; 33(4):392-9.
24. Ayyıldız S, Uyar UDHA, Yüzgüllü B. Diş Hekimliğinde Mikrosızıntı Ve İnceleme Yöntemleri. Atatürk Üniv. Diş.Hek. Fak. Derg 2009;19(3):219-26.
25. Karabulut B, Can-Karabulut DC, Öz FT. Süt ve sürekli dentin uygulanan farklı dentin bağlayıcı sistemlerin taramalı elektron mikroskobunda incelenmesi. Gülhane Tıp Dergisi 2009; 51(4):205-11.
26. Zoidis P, Bakiri E, Polyzois G. Using modified polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an alternative material for endocrown restorations: A short-term clinical report. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2017; 117(3):335-9.
27. Sinha N, et al. Versatility of PEEK as a fixed partial denture framework. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2017;17(1):80-83.
28. Sulaya K, Guttal SS. Clinical evaluation of performance of single unit polyetheretherketone crown restoration-a pilot study. The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society 2020; 20(1):38-44.
29. Raj DA, et al. Clinical acceptability of PEEK fixed dental prosthesis in partially edentulous patient–A one year single arm pilot study. Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research 2020;10(4):523-8.
30. Dietschi D, et al. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence International 2008;39(2):117-29.
31. Della Bona A, Anusavice KJ, Hood JA. Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement. Int J Prosthodont. 2002 May-Jun;15(3):248-53.
32. Hara A, Pimenta L, Rodrigues Jr A. Influence of cross-head speed on resin-dentin shear bond strength. Dental Materials 2001;17(2):165-9.

Details

Primary Language

English

Subjects

Prosthodontics

Journal Section

Research Article

Authors

Emrah Ayna ^*
0000-0003-2684-0131
Türkiye

Burcu Ayman
0000-0001-7236-8267
Türkiye

Cansel Belge
0000-0001-6765-7312
Türkiye

Early Pub Date

August 26, 2025

Publication Date

August 29, 2025

Submission Date

February 15, 2025

Acceptance Date

April 24, 2025

Published in Issue

Year 2025 Volume: 5 Number: 2

DOI

https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1640535

IZ

https://izlik.org/JA54AN22NP

Cite

RIS / Bibtex

APA

Ayna, E., Ayman, B., & Belge, C. (2025). Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials. HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research, 5(2), 66-73. https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1640535

AMA

1.Ayna E, Ayman B, Belge C. Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials. HRU Int J Dent Oral Res. 2025;5(2):66-73. doi:10.61139/ijdor.1640535

Chicago

Ayna, Emrah, Burcu Ayman, and Cansel Belge. 2025. “Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials”. HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research 5 (2): 66-73. https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1640535.

EndNote

Ayna E, Ayman B, Belge C (August 1, 2025) Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials. HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research 5 2 66–73.

IEEE

[1]E. Ayna, B. Ayman, and C. Belge, “Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials”, HRU Int J Dent Oral Res, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 66–73, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.61139/ijdor.1640535.

ISNAD

Ayna, Emrah - Ayman, Burcu - Belge, Cansel. “Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials”. HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research 5/2 (August 1, 2025): 66-73. https://doi.org/10.61139/ijdor.1640535.

JAMA

1.Ayna E, Ayman B, Belge C. Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials. HRU Int J Dent Oral Res. 2025;5:66–73.

MLA

Ayna, Emrah, et al. “Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials”. HRU International Journal of Dentistry and Oral Research, vol. 5, no. 2, Aug. 2025, pp. 66-73, doi:10.61139/ijdor.1640535.

Vancouver

1.Emrah Ayna, Burcu Ayman, Cansel Belge. Comparison of Microtensile Bonding Strength and Microleakage of Endocrowns Restorations Prepared With Two Different Materials. HRU Int J Dent Oral Res. 2025 Aug. 1;5(2):66-73. doi:10.61139/ijdor.1640535