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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Comba, Allegra, Baldi, Andrea, Saratti, Carlo Massimo, Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso, Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes, Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha, Valandro, Felipe Luiz, Scotti, Nicola
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