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...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Clinical oral investigations 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.5967-5975 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 5975 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 10 |
| container_start_page | 5967 |
| container_title | Clinical oral investigations |
| container_volume | 25 |
| creator | Comba, Allegra Baldi, Andrea Saratti, Carlo Massimo Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha Valandro, Felipe Luiz Scotti, Nicola |
| 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. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8443477</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2572732239</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-78e3991f7310432a9b97236db453ba03f30e2ad651457b24071e7fd55284d0253</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9UcuKFDEULURxHvoDLiTgxk1pXlWp2ijSOCoMuNF1uJXcdGeoTtokJfQP-N2mpsfxsXCTXLjnkZPTNM8YfcUoVa9zPQbZUs5aKkbK2-OD5pxJ0bdCKfbwduZtPw7srLnI-YZSJnslHjdnQgw9Ff1w3vzYxGW2xHrnMGEodUpoCkmYS0xQfAykoNkF_23BTKDC6taHgsmB8TCTLRwIBEtcAlOWhCvV5wLBIImOYLDRxlC8gXk-kpIQCtrKqAo-piqOZff2SfPIwZzx6d192Xy9ev9l87G9_vzh0-bddWukkqVVA4pxZE4JRms2GKdRcdHbSXZiAiqcoMjB9h2TnZq4pIqhcrbr-CAt5Z24bN6cdA_LtEdrauIEsz4kv4d01BG8_nsT_E5v43c9SCmkUlXg5Z1AiuuPFL332eA8Q8C4ZM1X63GQavV68Q_0Ji4p1HgVpbgSnIuxovgJZVLMOaG7fwyjeq1Zn2rWtWZ9W7M-VtLzP2PcU371WgHiBMh1FbaYfnv_R_Yn3Wa2bA</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2572732239</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerLink (Online service)</source><creator>Comba, Allegra ; Baldi, Andrea ; Saratti, Carlo Massimo ; Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso ; Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes ; Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha ; Valandro, Felipe Luiz ; Scotti, Nicola</creator><creatorcontrib>Comba, Allegra ; Baldi, Andrea ; Saratti, Carlo Massimo ; Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso ; Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes ; Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha ; Valandro, Felipe Luiz ; Scotti, Nicola</creatorcontrib><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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1432-6981</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1436-3771</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33860368</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg</publisher><subject>Chewing ; Composite Resins ; Computed tomography ; Dental caries ; Dental cement ; Dental Stress Analysis ; Dentistry ; Fibers ; Humans ; Incisors ; Mechanical properties ; Medical imaging ; Medicine ; Original ; Original Article ; Post and Core Technique ; Teeth ; Tooth Fractures ; Tooth, Nonvital</subject><ispartof>Clinical oral investigations, 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.5967-5975</ispartof><rights>The Author(s) 2021</rights><rights>2021. The Author(s).</rights><rights>The Author(s) 2021. This work is published under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (the “License”). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-78e3991f7310432a9b97236db453ba03f30e2ad651457b24071e7fd55284d0253</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-78e3991f7310432a9b97236db453ba03f30e2ad651457b24071e7fd55284d0253</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$Hfree_for_read</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,27924,27925,41488,42557,51319</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33860368$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Comba, Allegra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldi, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saratti, Carlo Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valandro, Felipe Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scotti, Nicola</creatorcontrib><title>Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?</title><title>Clinical oral investigations</title><addtitle>Clin Oral Invest</addtitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><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.</description><subject>Chewing</subject><subject>Composite Resins</subject><subject>Computed tomography</subject><subject>Dental caries</subject><subject>Dental cement</subject><subject>Dental Stress Analysis</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>Fibers</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incisors</subject><subject>Mechanical properties</subject><subject>Medical imaging</subject><subject>Medicine</subject><subject>Original</subject><subject>Original Article</subject><subject>Post and Core Technique</subject><subject>Teeth</subject><subject>Tooth Fractures</subject><subject>Tooth, Nonvital</subject><issn>1432-6981</issn><issn>1436-3771</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>C6C</sourceid><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9UcuKFDEULURxHvoDLiTgxk1pXlWp2ijSOCoMuNF1uJXcdGeoTtokJfQP-N2mpsfxsXCTXLjnkZPTNM8YfcUoVa9zPQbZUs5aKkbK2-OD5pxJ0bdCKfbwduZtPw7srLnI-YZSJnslHjdnQgw9Ff1w3vzYxGW2xHrnMGEodUpoCkmYS0xQfAykoNkF_23BTKDC6taHgsmB8TCTLRwIBEtcAlOWhCvV5wLBIImOYLDRxlC8gXk-kpIQCtrKqAo-piqOZff2SfPIwZzx6d192Xy9ev9l87G9_vzh0-bddWukkqVVA4pxZE4JRms2GKdRcdHbSXZiAiqcoMjB9h2TnZq4pIqhcrbr-CAt5Z24bN6cdA_LtEdrauIEsz4kv4d01BG8_nsT_E5v43c9SCmkUlXg5Z1AiuuPFL332eA8Q8C4ZM1X63GQavV68Q_0Ji4p1HgVpbgSnIuxovgJZVLMOaG7fwyjeq1Zn2rWtWZ9W7M-VtLzP2PcU371WgHiBMh1FbaYfnv_R_Yn3Wa2bA</recordid><startdate>20211001</startdate><enddate>20211001</enddate><creator>Comba, Allegra</creator><creator>Baldi, Andrea</creator><creator>Saratti, Carlo Massimo</creator><creator>Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso</creator><creator>Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes</creator><creator>Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha</creator><creator>Valandro, Felipe Luiz</creator><creator>Scotti, Nicola</creator><general>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>C6C</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88E</scope><scope>8AO</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M1P</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20211001</creationdate><title>Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?</title><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></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c474t-78e3991f7310432a9b97236db453ba03f30e2ad651457b24071e7fd55284d0253</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Chewing</topic><topic>Composite Resins</topic><topic>Computed tomography</topic><topic>Dental caries</topic><topic>Dental cement</topic><topic>Dental Stress Analysis</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>Fibers</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incisors</topic><topic>Mechanical properties</topic><topic>Medical imaging</topic><topic>Medicine</topic><topic>Original</topic><topic>Original Article</topic><topic>Post and Core Technique</topic><topic>Teeth</topic><topic>Tooth Fractures</topic><topic>Tooth, Nonvital</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Comba, Allegra</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Baldi, Andrea</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saratti, Carlo Massimo</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Valandro, Felipe Luiz</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scotti, Nicola</creatorcontrib><collection>Springer Nature OA Free Journals</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Medical Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Pharma Collection</collection><collection>Public Health Database (Proquest)</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health & Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health & Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>PML(ProQuest Medical Library)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Journals</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Comba, Allegra</au><au>Baldi, Andrea</au><au>Saratti, Carlo Massimo</au><au>Rocca, Giovanni Tommaso</au><au>Torres, Carlos Rocha Gomes</au><au>Pereira, Gabriel Kalil Rocha</au><au>Valandro, Felipe Luiz</au><au>Scotti, Nicola</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth?</atitle><jtitle>Clinical oral investigations</jtitle><stitle>Clin Oral Invest</stitle><addtitle>Clin Oral Investig</addtitle><date>2021-10-01</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>25</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>5967</spage><epage>5975</epage><pages>5967-5975</pages><issn>1432-6981</issn><eissn>1436-3771</eissn><abstract>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.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer Berlin Heidelberg</pub><pmid>33860368</pmid><doi>10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y</doi><tpages>9</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1432-6981 |
| ispartof | Clinical oral investigations, 2021-10, Vol.25 (10), p.5967-5975 |
| issn | 1432-6981 1436-3771 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_8443477 |
| source | MEDLINE; SpringerLink (Online service) |
| subjects | Chewing Composite Resins Computed tomography Dental caries Dental cement Dental Stress Analysis Dentistry Fibers Humans Incisors Mechanical properties Medical imaging Medicine Original Original Article Post and Core Technique Teeth Tooth Fractures Tooth, Nonvital |
| title | Could different direct restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth? |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-25T05%3A44%3A40IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Could%20different%20direct%20restoration%20techniques%20affect%20interfacial%20gap%20and%20fracture%20resistance%20of%20endodontically%20treated%20anterior%20teeth?&rft.jtitle=Clinical%20oral%20investigations&rft.au=Comba,%20Allegra&rft.date=2021-10-01&rft.volume=25&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=5967&rft.epage=5975&rft.pages=5967-5975&rft.issn=1432-6981&rft.eissn=1436-3771&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s00784-021-03902-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2572732239%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2572732239&rft_id=info:pmid/33860368&rfr_iscdi=true |