Cargando…
Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate different direct restoration techniques on various cavity designs in anterior endodontically treated teeth (ETT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety upper central incisors (n = 90) were selected, endodontically treated, and divided into three groups (n = 30) accordingly to the cav...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8443477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33860368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y |
_version_ | 1783753191760855040 |
---|---|
author | Comba, Allegra Baldi, Andrea Saratti, Carlo Massimo Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Valandro, Felipe Luiz Scotti, Nicola |
author_facet | Comba, Allegra Baldi, Andrea Saratti, Carlo Massimo Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Valandro, Felipe Luiz Scotti, Nicola |
author_sort | Comba, Allegra |
collection | PubMed |
description | OBJECTIVES: To evaluate different direct restoration techniques on various cavity designs in anterior endodontically treated teeth (ETT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety upper central incisors (n = 90) were selected, endodontically treated, and divided into three groups (n = 30) accordingly to the cavity design: minimal endodontic cavity access (group A), endodontic access + mesial class III cavity (group B), and endodontic access + two class III cavities (group C). Three subgroups (n = 10) were then created accordingly to the restoration technique: nano hybrid composite restoration (subgroup a), glass fiber post + dual-cure luting cement (subgroup b), and bundled glass fiber + dual-cure luting cement (subgroup c). Samples underwent micro-CT scan, chewing simulation, and a second micro-CT scan. 3D quantification (mm(3)) of interfacial gap progression was performed; then, samples underwent fracture resistance test. Data were statistically analyzed setting significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Groups A and B showed significantly lower interfacial gap progression compared with group C. Subgroup b performed significantly better compared with subgroups a and c. Improved fracture strength was reported for group C compared with group A, while both subgroups b and c performed better than subgroup a. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity design significantly influenced interfacial gap progression and fracture resistance. Fiber posts significantly lowered gap progression and improved fracture resistance while bundled fibers only increased fracture resistance. A significant reduction of non-repairable fractures was recorded when fibers were applied. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A minimally invasive approach, conserving marginal crests, should be applied whenever possible. Inserting a fiber post is indicated when restoring anterior ETT, in order to reduce gap progression, improve fracture resistance, and avoid catastrophic failures. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8443477 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84434772021-10-01 Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? Comba, Allegra Baldi, Andrea Saratti, Carlo Massimo Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Valandro, Felipe Luiz Scotti, Nicola Clin Oral Investig Original Article OBJECTIVES: To evaluate different direct restoration techniques on various cavity designs in anterior endodontically treated teeth (ETT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety upper central incisors (n = 90) were selected, endodontically treated, and divided into three groups (n = 30) accordingly to the cavity design: minimal endodontic cavity access (group A), endodontic access + mesial class III cavity (group B), and endodontic access + two class III cavities (group C). Three subgroups (n = 10) were then created accordingly to the restoration technique: nano hybrid composite restoration (subgroup a), glass fiber post + dual-cure luting cement (subgroup b), and bundled glass fiber + dual-cure luting cement (subgroup c). Samples underwent micro-CT scan, chewing simulation, and a second micro-CT scan. 3D quantification (mm(3)) of interfacial gap progression was performed; then, samples underwent fracture resistance test. Data were statistically analyzed setting significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: Groups A and B showed significantly lower interfacial gap progression compared with group C. Subgroup b performed significantly better compared with subgroups a and c. Improved fracture strength was reported for group C compared with group A, while both subgroups b and c performed better than subgroup a. CONCLUSIONS: Cavity design significantly influenced interfacial gap progression and fracture resistance. Fiber posts significantly lowered gap progression and improved fracture resistance while bundled fibers only increased fracture resistance. A significant reduction of non-repairable fractures was recorded when fibers were applied. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A minimally invasive approach, conserving marginal crests, should be applied whenever possible. Inserting a fiber post is indicated when restoring anterior ETT, in order to reduce gap progression, improve fracture resistance, and avoid catastrophic failures. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2021-04-15 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8443477/ /pubmed/33860368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Original Article Comba, Allegra Baldi, Andrea Saratti, Carlo Massimo Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Valandro, Felipe Luiz Scotti, Nicola Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title_full | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title_fullStr | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title_full_unstemmed | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title_short | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
title_sort | could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
topic | Original Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8443477/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33860368 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT combaallegra coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT baldiandrea coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT saratticarlomassimo coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT roccagiovannitommaso coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT torrescarlosrochagomes coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT pereiragabrielkalilrocha coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT valandrofelipeluiz coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth AT scottinicola coulddifferentdirectrestorationtechniquesaffectinterfacialgapandfractureresistanceofendodonticallytreatedanteriorteeth |