Cargando…
Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies
Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. Materials and Methods: The review...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Taylor & Francis
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8312589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34368777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510 |
_version_ | 1783729173839216640 |
---|---|
author | Beji Vijayakumar, Joshna Varadan, Preethi Balaji, Lakshmi Rajan, Mathan Kalaiselvam, Rajeswari Saeralaathan, Sindhu Ganesh, Arathi |
author_facet | Beji Vijayakumar, Joshna Varadan, Preethi Balaji, Lakshmi Rajan, Mathan Kalaiselvam, Rajeswari Saeralaathan, Sindhu Ganesh, Arathi |
author_sort | Beji Vijayakumar, Joshna |
collection | PubMed |
description | Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. Materials and Methods: The review protocol was registered in the P ROSP ERO database (CRD42020166201). A comprehensive literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using key terms. Only in-vitro studies that compared fracture resistance of LDS-based endocrowns and indirect RB endocrowns in molars were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and qualitative analysis of the included studies were performed. Results: Five studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the included studies was moderate. Under axial loading, RB endocrowns showed similar fracture resistance when compared with LDS endocrowns. However, they showed better fracture resistance when compared with zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) endocrowns. Furthermore, RB endocrowns showed fewer catastrophic failures than LDS-based endocrowns. Conclusions: RB endocrowns have similar or better fracture resistance and fewer catastrophic failures when compared to LDS-based endocrowns. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8312589 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Taylor & Francis |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-83125892021-08-06 Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies Beji Vijayakumar, Joshna Varadan, Preethi Balaji, Lakshmi Rajan, Mathan Kalaiselvam, Rajeswari Saeralaathan, Sindhu Ganesh, Arathi Biomater Investig Dent Review Article Objectives: The primary objective of this systematic review is to compare the fracture resistance of lithium disilicate (LDS)-based endocrowns and resin-based (RB) endocrowns of in-vitro studies, and the secondary objective is to compare their catastrophic failures. Materials and Methods: The review protocol was registered in the P ROSP ERO database (CRD42020166201). A comprehensive literature search was done in PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCOhost and Google Scholar using key terms. Only in-vitro studies that compared fracture resistance of LDS-based endocrowns and indirect RB endocrowns in molars were included. Data extraction, risk of bias assessment and qualitative analysis of the included studies were performed. Results: Five studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the included studies was moderate. Under axial loading, RB endocrowns showed similar fracture resistance when compared with LDS endocrowns. However, they showed better fracture resistance when compared with zirconia reinforced lithium silicate (ZLS) endocrowns. Furthermore, RB endocrowns showed fewer catastrophic failures than LDS-based endocrowns. Conclusions: RB endocrowns have similar or better fracture resistance and fewer catastrophic failures when compared to LDS-based endocrowns. Taylor & Francis 2021-07-22 /pmc/articles/PMC8312589/ /pubmed/34368777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510 Text en © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Review Article Beji Vijayakumar, Joshna Varadan, Preethi Balaji, Lakshmi Rajan, Mathan Kalaiselvam, Rajeswari Saeralaathan, Sindhu Ganesh, Arathi Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title | Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title_full | Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title_fullStr | Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title_full_unstemmed | Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title_short | Fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. Which is better? – A systematic review of in-vitro studies |
title_sort | fracture resistance of resin based and lithium disilicate endocrowns. which is better? – a systematic review of in-vitro studies |
topic | Review Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8312589/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34368777 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/26415275.2021.1932510 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bejivijayakumarjoshna fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT varadanpreethi fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT balajilakshmi fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT rajanmathan fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT kalaiselvamrajeswari fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT saeralaathansindhu fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies AT ganesharathi fractureresistanceofresinbasedandlithiumdisilicateendocrownswhichisbetterasystematicreviewofinvitrostudies |