Fracture strength of endocrown maxillary restorations using different preparation designs and materials.

PURPOSE This study investigated the impact of preparation design and material types on fracture strength in maxillary premolars endocrowns after thermodynamic aging. MATERIALS AND METHODS Eighty two-rooted maxillary premolar crowns underwent endodontic treatment (N = 80, n = 10). The teeth were categorized into ten groups (4-mm deep with no intracanal extension lithium disilicate glass ceramic & multilayer zirconia endocrowns (LE0 & ZE0); 4-mm deep with 4-mm intracanal extension in one canal (LE1 & ZE1); 4-mm deep with 2-mm intracanal extensions in both canals (LE2 & ZE2); flat overlays with no endocore (LO & ZO); glass fiber reinforced post & core and crown (LC & ZC)). After cementation, all specimens were subjected to 1500 thermocycles and 1,200,000 chewing cycles with an axial occlusal load of 49 N. A static loading test was performed at a non-axial 45° loading using a universal testing machine and failure modes (Type I: restoration debonding; Type II: restoration fracture; Type III: restoration/tooth complex fracture above bone level; Type IV: restoration/tooth complex fracture below bone level) were evaluated using a stereoscope. Data were ananalzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS The endocrowns manufactured from multilayered zirconia and pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramic exhibited a fracture load ranging between 1334 ± 332 N and 756 ± 150 N, with ZC presenting the highest and LE2 the lowest values. The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION All endocrowns tested in this study performed similar considering the different designs and materials tested. The distribution of fracture modes did not differ significantly depending on the design of the restoration and the type of material used

Fracture strength of endocrown maxillary restorations using different preparation designs and materials

PURPOSE: This study investigated the impact of preparation design and material types on fracture strength in maxillary premolars endocrowns after thermodynamic aging. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty two-rooted maxillary premolar crowns underwent endodontic treatment (N = 80, n = 10). The teeth were categorized into ten groups (4-mm deep with no intracanal extension lithium disilicate glass ceramic & multilayer zirconia endocrowns (LE0 & ZE0); 4-mm deep with 4-mm intracanal extension in one canal (LE1 & ZE1); 4-mm deep with 2-mm intracanal extensions in both canals (LE2 & ZE2); flat overlays with no endocore (LO & ZO); glass fiber reinforced post & core and crown (LC & ZC)). After cementation, all specimens were subjected to 1500 thermocycles and 1,200,000 chewing cycles with an axial occlusal load of 49 N. A static loading test was performed at a non-axial 45° loading using a universal testing machine and failure modes (Type I: restoration debonding; Type II: restoration fracture; Type III: restoration/tooth complex fracture above bone level; Type IV: restoration/tooth complex fracture below bone level) were evaluated using a stereoscope. Data were ananalzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: The endocrowns manufactured from multilayered zirconia and pressed lithium disilicate glass ceramic exhibited a fracture load ranging between 1334 ± 332 N and 756 ± 150 N, with ZC presenting the highest and LE2 the lowest values. The differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: All endocrowns tested in this study performed similar considering the different designs and materials tested. The distribution of fracture modes did not differ significantly depending on the design of the restoration and the type of material used