Retention of different CAD/CAM endocrowns bonded to severely damaged endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study

An In Vitro Study of Retention and Marginal Adaptation of Endocrowns With Different Intracoronal Depths

BACKGROUND

Marginal adaptation and retention of endocrowns are crucial for the success and survival of endocrowns. This study aimed to investigate the effect of different materials and intracoronal depth on the retention and marginal adaptation of CAD/CAM fabricated all-ceramic endocrowns.

METHODS

Thirty-six mandibular premolar teeth with an average surface area of 64.49 mm2 were prepared to receive CAM/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Samples were divided randomly and equally into groups of lithium disilicate with 2 mm intracoronal depth (LD2), lithium disilicate with 4 mm intracoronal depth (LD4), polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 2 mm intracoronal depth (PICN2) and polymer infiltrated ceramic network with 4 mm intracoronal depth (PICN4). All endocrowns were cemented using ParaCore resin cement with 14N pressure and cured for 20 seconds. Fifty measurements of absolute marginal discrepancy (AMD) were done using a stereomicroscope after cementation. After 24 hours, all samples were subjected to thermocycling before the retention test. This involved using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min and applying a load of 500N. The maximum force to detach the crown was recorded in newtons and the mode of failure was identified.

RESULTS

Two-way ANOVA revealed that the AMD for PICN was statistically significantly better than lithium disilicate (p=0.01). No statistically significant difference was detected in the AMD between the two intracoronal depths (p=0.72). PICN and endocrowns with 4 mm intracoronal depth had statistically significant better retention (p<0.05). 72.22% of the sample suffered from cohesive failures and 10 LD endocrowns suffered adhesive failures.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this study, we found that different materials and intracoronal depths can indeed influence the retention of CAD/CAM fabricated endocrowns. Based on the controlled setting findings, PICN was found to have better retention and better marginal adaptation than similar lithium disilicate premolar endocrowns.

Biomechanical behavior of all-ceramic endocrowns fabricated using CAD/CAM: A systematic review

PURPOSE

This study performed a systematic review to assess the biomechanical behavior of all-ceramic endowcrowns fabricated using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.

STUDY SELECTION

Three electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) were searched by operators specializing in health sciences databases searches to answer the following focused question based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome (PICO) format: "Whether all-ceramic CAD/CAM endocrowns (Intervention) used to restore human endodontically treated teeth (Population) exhibit superior fracture resistance (Outcome) compared to non-CAD/CAM all-ceramic or non-ceramic endocrowns (Comparison)." The methodological quality assessment was performed using previously conducted systematic reviews of in vitro studies. The outcomes were expressed as the mean ± the standard deviation (SD).

RESULTS

Seventeen in vitro studies were included. The materials used in these studies were lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, polymer-infiltrated ceramic, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate glass-ceramic, resin/hybrid nanoceramics, zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics, and feldspathic ceramic. The fracture resistance of endocrowns using different ceramics varied as follows: (i) IPS e.max CAD (2863.62 ± 51.47 N), (ii) Vita Enamic (1952 ± 378 N), (iii) Vita Suprinity (1859 ± 588 N), (iv) Cerasmart (1981 ± 169.5 N), (v) LAVA Ultimate (2484 ± 464 N), (vi) Celtra Duo (1618.30 ± 585.00 N), and (vii) Cerec Blocs (236.29 ± 32.12 N).

CONCLUSIONS

CAD/CAM all-ceramic endocrowns can withstand occlusal forces in the posterior region. All-ceramic endocrowns improve the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth. Lithium disilicate crowns were commonly and successfully used in the included studies. More in vitro investigations that implement uniformity in material and measurement approaches are required to strengthen the evidence currently available in the literature regarding the durability of all-ceramic endocrowns.

A Comparative Analysis of Marginal Adaptation Values between Lithium Disilicate Glass Ceramics and Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Endocrowns: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies

This systematic review aimed to identify and analyze in vitro studies on the marginal adaptation values of computer-aided-design/computer-aided-manufacturing (CAD/CAM) and heat-pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramics and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicates and endocrown restorations. A full literature search was conducted in Web of Science, PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and ProQuest electronic databases. The following keywords: endocrown [(marginal adaption) or (marginal fit) or internal fitting)], endocrown [(molar(s)) or (premolar(s) or (posterior teeth) or (maxillary arch) or (mandibular arch)] and ceramic materials as [(lithium disilicate glass ceramic CAD/CAM) or (zirconia) or (heat-press)] were used. Articles were manually searched utilizing their reference lists. Study selection was restricted or limited to the time of publication but not to the type of tested teeth or ceramic material, endocrown design, system of endocrown construction, abutment scanning, and system of the marginal adaption measurement. A total of 17 in vitro studies published between 2016 and 2023 were included in this systemic review. Less than half of the studies were published during 2023. Most studies used lithium disilicate glass ceramic and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate all-ceramic materials by CAD/CAM or heat-press systems. Marginal adaptation, or marginal gap, was almost equal in the 2 materials, while it was slightly or marginally higher in the heat-press than in the CAD/CAM system. All-ceramic lithium disilicate glass ceramic and/or zirconia endocrowns fabricated for posterior teeth in both arches using CAD/CAM or heat-press had recorded marginal adaptation values within an acceptable range.

Retention of hybrid-abutment-crowns with offset implant placement: influence of Crown materials and Ti-base height

BACKGROUND

The purpose of the current study was to assess the impact of three esthetic CAD/CAM material, titanium base height and their interaction on the retention strength of a hybrid-abutment-crown.

METHODS

A total of 42 hybrid-abutment crowns with identical external geometries were designed in CAD software to fit two different Ti-Base abutment heights (n = 42/abutment height): either short (S) with 4 mm (n = 21) or long (L) 7 mm (n = 21) height. Each main group was divided into 3 subgroups (n = 7), according to esthetic crown material, Zirconia (Z), Lithium disilicate (L) and Hybrid ceramic (V). A universal primer and an adhesive resin cement were used for bonding according to the manufacturer instructions. Artificial aging in form of water storage (30 days), chewing simulation (50,000-cycles, 49 N, 1.67 Hz) and thermal cyclic (5000 cycles at 5-55 °C) were applied, specimens were pulled-out under tension load in (N) using a universal testing machine. Two and one-way ANOVA and Post Hoc Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Long lithium disilicate (LL) group showed the highest retention (738.7 ± 178.5) followed by short lithium disilicate (LS) group (688.6 ± 169.9). Meanwhile, short zirconia (ZS) showed the lowest retention strength (231.1 ± 86.9).

CONCLUSION

CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate hybrid-abutment-crown can be used instead of conventional crowns over implant abutment. Etchable ceramics are recommended as a material of choice for CAD/CAM fabricated hybrid-abutment-crowns instead of zirconia in terms of retention durability.

In Vitro Evaluation of Lithium Disilicate Endocrowns and Post and Core Crowns-A Systematic Review

The aim of this systematic review was to summarize the results of the studies that have compared the physical and mechanical properties of lithium disilicate (LDS) endocrowns constructed for posterior teeth to those retained by post-and-core retention systems. The review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The electronic search process was conducted on PubMed-Medline, Scopus, Embase and ISI Web of Knowledge (WoS) from the earliest available date till 31 January 2023. Additionally, the studies were assessed for their overall quality and risk of bias using the Quality Assessment Tool For In Vitro Studies (the QUIN). The initial search resulted in 291 articles, out of which, only 10 studies met the eligibility criteria. In all studies LDS endocrowns were compared with various kinds of endodontic posts and crowns made from other materials. There were no definite pattern or trends observed in the fracture strengths of tested specimens. There was no predilection observed in failure patters among the experimental specimens. No predilection was observed in the fracture strengths of LDS endocrowns when compared to post-and-core crowns. Furthermore, no differences in failure patterns could be observed when both types of restorations were compared. The authors propose standardized testing of endocrowns against post-and-core crowns in future studies. In conclusion, long-term clinical trials are advocated to compare the survival, failure and complication rates of LDS endocrowns and post-and-core restorations.

PEEK in Fixed Dental Prostheses: Application and Adhesion Improvement

Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) has been widely applied in fixed dental prostheses, comprising crowns, fixed partial dentures, and post-and-core. PEEK’s excellent mechanical properties facilitate better stress distribution than conventional materials, protecting the abutment teeth. However, the stiffness of PEEK is not sufficient, which can be improved via fiber reinforcement. PEEK is biocompatible. It is nonmutagenic, noncytotoxic, and nonallergenic. However, the chemical stability of PEEK is a double-edged sword. On the one hand, PEEK is nondegradable and intraoral corrosion is minimized. On the other hand, the inert surface makes adhesive bonding difficult. Numerous strategies for improving the adhesive properties of PEEK have been explored, including acid etching, plasma treatment, airborne particle abrasion, laser treatment, and adhesive systems.