Mechanical Failure of Endocrowns Manufactured with Different Ceramic Materials: An In Vitro Biomechanical Study

• Published in: Journal of prosthodontics 2018-04, Vol.27 (4), p.340-346
• Main Authors: Aktas, Guliz, Yerlikaya, Hatice, Akca, Kivanc
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adhesives; Aging; Aluminum oxide; Biomechanical Phenomena; Ceramics; Crowns; Data acquisition; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Restoration Failure; Dentistry; Endocrown; Endodontics; Fractures; Humans; In Vitro Techniques; Mandible; Materials Testing; mechanical failure; Mechanical properties; Molar; Periodontics; Powder; Root canals; Silica; silicate ceramics; Statistical analysis; Teeth; Zirconia
• ISSN: 1059-941X; 1532-849X
• DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12499

Purpose To evaluate the effect of different silica‐based ceramic materials on the mechanical failure behavior of endocrowns used in the restoration of endodontically treated mandibular molar teeth. Materials and Methods Thirty‐six intact mandibular molar teeth extracted because of a loss of periodontal support received root canal treatment. The teeth were prepared with a central cavity to support the endocrowns, replacing the occlusal surface with mesial‐lingual‐distal walls. Data acquisition of the prepared tooth surfaces was carried out digitally with a powder‐free intraoral scanner. Restoration designs were completed on manufactured restorations from three silicate ceramics: alumina‐silicate (control), zirconia‐reinforced (Zr‐R), and polymer‐infiltrated (P‐I). Following adhesive cementation, endocrowns were subjected to thermal aging, and then, each specimen was obliquely loaded to record the fracture strength and define the mechanical failure. For the failure definition, the fracture type characteristics were identified, and further analytic measurements were made on the fractured tooth and ceramic structure. Results Load‐to‐fracture failure did not differ significantly, and the calculated mean values were 1035.08 N, 1058.33 N, and 1025.00 N for control, Zr‐R, and P‐I groups, respectively; however, the stiffness of the restoration‐tooth complex was significantly higher than that in both test groups. No statistically significant correlation was established in paired comparisons of the failure strength, restorative stiffness, and fractured tooth distance parameters. The failure mode for teeth restored with zirconia‐reinforced glass ceramics was identified as non‐restorable. The resin interface in the control and P‐I groups presented similar adhesive failure behavior. Conclusion Mechanical failure of endocrown restorations does not significantly differ for silica‐based ceramics modified either with zirconia or polymer.