posterpresentation
Description

Title: 1988 - Fracture Strength of Direct Large Composite and Glass-Ceramic Endocrown Restorations

Authors:

Maurits de Kuijper (Presenter)
University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene

MMM Gresnigt, University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene
Marianne van den Houten, University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene
Djenice Haumahu, University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene
Ulf Schepke, University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene
MS Cune, University of Groningen, Univerity Medical Center Groningen, Center for Dentistry and Oral Hygiene

Abstract:

Objectives: The objective of this study is to simulate the mechanical behaviour of severely compromised endodontically treated molars restored by means of a direct composite build-up, full-contour lithium disilicate crown (with or without post) or a lithium disilicate endocrown.

Methods: 105 Sound human molars were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to 1 control group and 6 experimental groups (n=15). Molars in the treatment groups were decapitated 1mm above the CEJ and subsequently restored: group GFRC: Glass Fibre Reinforced Composite; group C: direct microhybrid Composite; group PC: direct microhybrid composite restoration with a glass fiber post; group LDS: composite build-up and full-contour Lithium DiSilicate crown; group P-LDS: additional glass fiber post and group EC: EndoCrown. All specimens were thermo-mechanically aged (1.2x106 cycles at 1.7Hz/50N, 8000 cycles 5-55 degrees Celsius) and axially loaded until failure occurred. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (α=0.05).

Results: Fracture strength was significantly affected by the type of restoration (p=0.000): LDSA (3217±1052N), P-LDSAB (2697±665N), ECAB (2425±993N), CB (2192±752N), ControlB (1890±774N), PCB (1830±590N) and GFRCB (1823±911N). Group GFRC obtained significantly more repairable fractures than the other groups.

Conclusions: There was a significant difference in fracture strength between LDS, the composite restorations and control group. Direct composite restorations showed similar fracture strength as P-LDS and EC. EC performed equally well as compared to LDS. The insertion of a post had no influence on the fracture strength. The incorporation of GFRC resulted in more repairable fractures.

Student Presenter

This abstract is based on research that was funded entirely or partially by an outside source:
Stichting Bevordering Tandheelkundige Kennis - Grant 2015

Disclosure Statement:
The submitter must disclose the names of the organizations with which any author have a relationship, the nature of the relationship, and the clinical or research area involved. The following is submitted: This study was supported by a research grant of the Dutch society for dental science 'Stichting Bevordering Tandheelkundige Kennis'. The authors acknowledge Ivoclar Vivadent (Schaan, Liechtenstein), GC (Leuven, Belgium) and Sirona (Bensheim, Germany) for supplying part of the materials used in this study.

Tags