FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF ENDODONTICALLY TREATED TEETH RESTORED WITH LITHIUM DISILICATE CROWNS RETAINED WITH FIBER POSTS COMPARED TO CERASMART AND CELTRA DUO ENDOCROWNS (IN VITRO STUDY) | ||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||
| Article 13, Volume 67, Issue 3 - Serial Number 4, July 2021, Pages 2343-2356 PDF (838.63 K) | ||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2021.67183.1546 | ||
| Authors | ||
| nada heikal* 1; rana sherif2; noha El-khodary3 | ||
| 1postgraduate Student, Fixed Prosthodontics Department, Cairo University, Giza, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| 2Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Cairo University, Giza, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| 3Lecturer of fixed prosthodontics, Cairo University, Giza, Cairo, Egypt. | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Aim: The purpose of this study wasto evaluate the fracture resistance of cerasmart and Celtra Duo endocrowns compared to endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber post and lithium disilicate crowns. Methodology: Eighteen sound maxillary premolars were endodontically treated, then divided into three groups: Group (GE) received fiber post, resin core and lithium disilicate (IPS E.max CAD, Ivoclar-Vivadent) crown. Group (GC) received endocrown with butt joint finish line design fabricated from hybrid ceramic (CERASMART, GC Dental USA). Group (GD) received endocrown with butt joint finish line design fabricated from zirconia reinforced lithium disilicate (CELTRA DUO, Dentsply Sirona). All restorations were fabricated using (CEREC MC XL SW 4.0) milling machineand cemented with self-adhesive dual cureresincement. Thermo-mechanical fatigue was applied on all samples and fracture test was then done. Scanning electron microscope was used for examining the fractured samples. Results: Fracture resistance test showed that there was statistically significant difference between the three groups (P-value = 0.001, Effect size = 0.603).GE showed statistically significant highest median fracture value (1866 +/- 399.9).Meanwhile, there was no statistical difference between mean fracture resistance values of GC of (1045.1 +/- 122.1) and GD (1377 +/-307) where both showed statistically significant lowest mean fracture resistance values. Conclusion: Conventional post, core andcrown treatment option remains the gold standard for treating endodontically treated maxillary premolar, nevertheless endocrown restoration on premolars needs further research to become a viable restoration in this condition. | ||
| Keywords | ||
| Endodontically treated teeth; Endocrowns; Post and core | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 411 PDF Download: 654 |
||
