Cargando…

Fracture resistance, failure mode and stress concentration in a modified endocrown design

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess fracture resistance, failure mode and stress concentration of a modified endocrown preparation design, under axial and lateral forces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty lower molars were divided into two groups (n = 20) and were restored with lithium disil...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ghoul, Wiam El, Özcan, Mutlu, Tribst, Joao Paulo Mendes, Salameh, Ziad
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Taylor & Francis 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7470158/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32939455
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2020.1801348
Descripción
Sumario:PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to assess fracture resistance, failure mode and stress concentration of a modified endocrown preparation design, under axial and lateral forces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty lower molars were divided into two groups (n = 20) and were restored with lithium disilicate glass-ceramic endocrowns following 2 preparation designs: Conventional, with circumferential butt margin 2 mm above the cemento–enamel junction; and Modified, by adding 2 grooves on the mesial side of the vestibular dentinal wall and on the distal side of the lingual dentinal wall. After cementation and thermomechanical cycling loading, half of the samples (n = 10) from each group were loaded axially and the other half (n = 10) was loaded laterally. Fracture resistance and failure modes were observed and the finite element analysis (FEA) was used to identify the stress concentration. Two-way ANOVA and Chi-square tests (α = 0.05) were used for in vitro data analyzes. RESULTS: Fracture resistance showed a statistically significant difference between conventional and modified preparations (p < .001), and between axial and lateral loadings (p < .001). Conventional preparation recorded 2914 N under axial loading and 1516 N under lateral loading, while modified preparation recorded 3329 N under axial loading and 1871 N under lateral loading. FEA showed that retention grooves have reduced the stress concentration under both loads for the tooth and the restoration. CONCLUSION: Modified endocrown design showed higher fracture resistance than conventional endocrown. Lateral loading displayed a high percentage of severe fracture but under higher load to failure than the values reported for normal masticatory forces.