Materials

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 12

materials

Article
Post-Fatigue Fracture and Marginal Behavior of Endodontically
Treated Teeth: Partial Crown vs. Full Crown vs. Endocrown vs.
Fiber-Reinforced Resin Composite
Roland Frankenberger 1, * , Julia Winter 1 , Marie-Christine Dudek 1 , Michael Naumann 2 , Stefanie Amend 3 ,
Andreas Braun 1,4 , Norbert Krämer 3 and Matthias J. Roggendorf 1

1 Medical Center for Dentistry, Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics, and Pediatric Dentistry,
Campus Marburg, University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Georg-Voigt-Str. 3,
35039 Marburg, Germany; [email protected] (J.W.);
[email protected] (M.-C.D.); [email protected] (A.B.);
[email protected] (M.J.R.)
2 Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry, and Craniomandibular Disorders,
Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Aßmannshauser Str. 4-6, 14197 Berlin, Germany;
[email protected]
3 Medical Center for Dentistry, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Campus Giessen,
University Medical Center Giessen and Marburg, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany;
[email protected] (S.A.); [email protected] (N.K.)
4 Department of Operative Dentistry, Periodontology and Preventive Dentistry, RWTH Aachen University,
Pauwelsstraße 30, 52074 Aachen, Germany

 * Correspondence: [email protected]

Citation: Frankenberger, R.; Winter,


J.; Dudek, M.-C.; Naumann, M.;
Abstract: Objectives: To investigate in vitro post-fatigue fracture behavior of endodontically treated
Amend, S.; Braun, A.; Krämer, N.; molars having been differently restored. Methods: A total of 120 extracted human molars were used.
Roggendorf, M.J. Post-Fatigue A total of 120 specimens in 14 test groups and one control group (n = 8) were root canal treated.
Fracture and Marginal Behavior of After postendodontic sealing and build-up (AdheSE Universal, SDR), additional MOD preparations
Endodontically Treated Teeth: Partial were cut. Postendodontic restorations were: Direct restorations (Tetric EvoCeram BulkFill bonded
Crown vs. Full Crown vs. Endocrown with AdheSE Universal and EverX Posterior/Essentia bonded with G-Premio Bond; as filling (F)
vs. Fiber-Reinforced Resin Composite. or direct partial crown (DPC) after reducing the cusps 2 mm; indirect adhesive restorations (partial
Materials 2021, 14, 7733. https://
crown/PC vs. full crown/FC): e.max CAD, Celtra Duo, both luted with Variolink Esthetic; indirect
doi.org/10.3390/ma14247733
zirconia restorations (partial crown/PC vs. full crown/FC), luted with RelyX Unicem 2; indirect
non-bonded cast gold restorations (partial crown/PC vs. full crown/FC; Degunorm), luted with
Academic Editor: Marco Cicciù
Ketac Cem. Before and after 300,000 thermocycles (5/55 ◦ C) and 1.2 Mio. A total of 100 N load cycles,
Received: 1 September 2021
replicas were analyzed under a SEM for marginal quality in enamel and dentin (where applicable)
Accepted: 24 November 2021 and finally, specimens were loaded until fracture. Results: In direct groups, there was no difference
Published: 15 December 2021 between RC and FRC in fracture strength (p > 0.05); however, direct partial crowns showed higher
post-fatigue fracture resistance. Regarding marginal quality, intracoronal FRC restorations exhibited
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral more gap-free margins in enamel than RC. In the indirect groups, there was no significant difference
with regard to jurisdictional claims in between partial and full crowns in any of the adhesively luted ceramic groups regarding post-fatigue
published maps and institutional affil- fracture resistance. Zirconia partial crowns exhibited significantly lower marginal quality in enamel.
iations. Indirect groups performed significantly better than direct groups in fracture resistance. Within the
indirect restorations, both cast gold groups and zirconia full crowns exhibited the highest fracture
resistance being superior to control teeth. Significances: Within the limits of this in vitro investigation,
it can be concluded that any kind of indirect restoration with cusp replacement is suitable for ETT
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. restoration when a certain cavity extension is exceeded. All indirect restorations, i.e., endocrowns,
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. partial crowns, and full crowns showed a promising performance after in vitro fatigue-loading.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and Keywords: endodontically treated teeth; cusp stabilization; fiber-reinforced; resin composites;
conditions of the Creative Commons
ceramics; lithium disilicate ceramic; zirconia-reinforced silicate ceramic; zirconia; endocrown
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Materials 2021, 14, 7733. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14247733 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/materials


Materials 2021, 14, 7733 2 of 12

1. Introduction
Today there is sufficient evidence that vital teeth may be effectively restored even
when substantially decayed [1–4]; however, after root canal treatment the prognosis is
considerably worse [5–7] because both pre-existing defects and endodontic access cavities
significantly weaken the tooth complex [8–10]. Consequently, clinical trials involving
endodontically treated teeth (ETT) reported worse results than vital teeth [11–16]. As
main reasons for clinical failure 12% vertical root fractures, 15% cusp fractures, and 40%
periodontal issues have been reported [14]. Both adequate preparation and restoration
have been permanently in the focus of primarily in vitro research [17–20]. In addition,
beside the previously investigated issues, also endocrowns have been increasingly focused
on [21–25] as special treatment option.
Clinical studies are still the preferable test for dental biomaterials, but they are com-
ing with extremely high efforts and potential patient drop out, and always involve the
risk that after several years of clinical service the tested materials are not on the market
anymore [1–4]. This is the reason in vitro studies are so important, primarily when fatigue
phenomena are involved [6,7,16,19,26–29]—nevertheless, of course also in vitro studies
have limitations.
In a previous investigation, we evaluated the influence of direct vs. indirect and
intracoronal (MO/MOD) vs. coverage restorations (partial crowns) [19]. It was clearly
shown that partial crowns always gave more stability to ETT compared to inlays, and
the same was true for direct resin composite restorations [19]. Although the mentioned
publication involved already 264 teeth, there remained some questions unanswered:
1. Is there a difference between partial crowns and full crowns?
2. Have fiber-reinforced resin composites advantages compared to conventional resin
composites in terms of stability [30–33]?
3. What is the status of endocrowns in that context?
Therefore the null hypotheses of this investigation were: There would be a. no differ-
ence between partial, full, and endocrowns irrespective of the material and b. no difference
between conventional and fiber-reinforced resin composites. It is the key innovation of this
paper to combine fracture strength and marginal quality evaluation, and that it is based on
a previously published fundament.

2. Methods and Materials


A total of 120 intact, caries- and restoration-free human mandibular wisdom teeth
with similar size (max. 3 mm difference) and fully developed and non-damaged roots,
extracted for therapeutic reasons were used. All patients were required to give informed
consent for inclusion of their extracted teeth. The study was conducted in accordance with
the Declaration of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the local ethics committee
(Project identification code 143/09).
Storage of specimens was performed in an aqueous solution of 0.5% chloramine T at 4 ◦ C
for up to 30 days as in any previous studies. Specimens were cleaned of plaque and calculus,
and light microscopically investigated that they were free of defects (×20 magnification). The
sample size was mainly guided by the maximal capacity of the experimental setup, but it
was also in line with previous studies [19,26].
The control group involved non-prepared teeth (n = 8), in the remaining 112 specimens
in 14 groups (n = 8) trepanations were cut and root canal preparation was carried out to a
working length of −1 mm from the apical foramen using MTwo rotary instruments (VDW,
Munich, Germany) up to size 0.04/#40. Working length was established using a C-Pilot
file ISO 10 (VDW) until it was visible at the apical foramen and then −1 mm. Root canals
were obturated with gutta-percha (VDW) under lateral compaction with AH Plus sealer
(Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and immediately sealed (Endo-Resto-System with
Prime&Bond active and SDR, Dentsply).
Additional to the endodontic access cavities, MOD preparations were cut (Figures 1–4).
Cavities were prepared with coarse diamond burs under water cooling (80 µm diamond,
cured materials were polymerized using a Bluephase lamp (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
Principality of Liechtenstein). Irradiance was evaluated with a radiometer (Demetron Re-
search Corp, Danbury, CT, USA) to guarantee >1000 mW/cm2.
The involved protocols for restoration are shown in Figure 5. RC procedures: A ma-
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 trix band was applied to the cavities (MOD) which were bonded with AdheSE Universal 3 of 12
(Ivoclar, Figure 3), and restored with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar) in oblique layers
of 2–4 mm thickness. Direct FRC adhesive procedures: After application of a metal matrix,
cavities were bonded with G-Premio Bond (GC), and restored with EverX Flow (GC) as
Komet,substitute
dentin Lemgo, Germany/KaVo
being covered with high-speed handpiece
2 mm Essentia with (GC)
Universal 3 cooling
in sameports, flow
layers as rate
RC.
30 the
In mL/min), and finish
DPC groups, lines were
all cusps were cut using2amm
reduced 25 µm
anddiamond (onesculpted
restorations diamondcoronally.
per four
cavities).
Resin The internal
composite layerscavity surfaces werefor
were polymerized cut
40round,
s each margins
with the did notunit
curing receive bevelsthe
touching in
all indirect preparations. Cavities for direct restorations received a 0.5 mm
matrix band’s upper edge. Matrices were removed and restorations were additionally pol- bevel. All
light-curedfrom
ymerized materials werefor
both sides polymerized using
20 s. Marginal a Bluephase
overhangs werelamp (Ivoclar
scaled Vivadent,
(A8 S204S, Schaan,
Hu-Friedy,
Principality
Leimen, of Liechtenstein).
Germany) Irradiance
and restorations was evaluated
were polished with disks
with flexible a radiometer (Demetron
(SofLex Pop-on, 3M
Research Corp,MN,
Danbury, 2
ESPE, St. Paul, USA).CT, USA) to guarantee >1000 mW/cm .

Materials 1. Specimen
Figure 2021, after
14, x FOR PEER MOD preparation and root canal obturation with standardized oro-buccal extension4 and
REVIEW of 12
Figure 1. Specimen after MOD preparation and root canal obturation with standardized oro-buccal extension and MOD
MOD preparation.
preparation.

Figure 2. Regimen for fundamental MOD preparations (a): rounded angles; (b): 90-degree transitions; (c): schematic over-
Figure 2. Regimen for fundamental MOD preparations (a): rounded angles; (b): 90-degree transitions; (c): schematic
view. These preps were further prepared to partial or full crowns or filled directly with RC and FRC.
overview. These preps were further prepared to partial or full crowns or filled directly with RC and FRC.

The involved protocols for restoration are shown in Figure 5. RC procedures: A matrix
band was applied to the cavities (MOD) which were bonded with AdheSE Universal
(Ivoclar, Figure 3), and restored with Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (Ivoclar) in oblique layers
of 2–4 mm thickness. Direct FRC adhesive procedures: After application of a metal matrix,
cavities were bonded with G-Premio Bond (GC), and restored with EverX Flow (GC) as
dentin substitute being covered with 2 mm Essentia Universal (GC) in same layers as RC.
In the DPC groups, all cusps were reduced 2 mm and restorations sculpted coronally. Resin
composite layers were polymerized for 40 s each with the curing unit touching the matrix
band’s upper edge. Matrices were removed and restorations were additionally polymerized
from both sides for 20 s. Marginal overhangs were scaled (A8 S204S, Hu-Friedy, Leimen,
Germany) and restorations were polished with flexible disks (SofLex Pop-on, 3M ESPE,
St. Paul, MN, USA).
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 4 of 12

Figure 2. Regimen for fundamental MOD preparations (a): rounded angles; (b): 90-degree transitions; (c): schematic over-
view. These
Figure preps were
2. Regimen for further prepared
fundamental MOD to preparations
partial or full(a):
crowns or filled
rounded directly
angles; with RC and
(b): 90-degree FRC. (c): schematic over-
transitions;
view. These preps were further prepared to partial or full crowns or filled directly with RC and FRC.

Figure 3. Adhesive pre-treatment in the inlay-style direct resin composite groups.


Figure 3. Adhesive pre-treatment in the inlay-style direct resin composite groups.
Figure 3. Adhesive pre-treatment in the inlay-style direct resin composite groups.

Figure 4. (a): Typical ceramic partial crown preparation with central FRC base. (b): Classic cast gold preparation with steps
and bevels.
Figure 4. (a): Typical ceramic partial crown preparation with central FRC base. (b): Classic cast gold preparation with steps
4. (a):
Figureand Typical ceramic partial crown preparation with central FRC base. (b): Classic cast gold preparation with steps
bevels.
and bevels.

Indirect adhesive groups were treated with milled lithium disilicate ceramics (e.max
CAD PC/FC, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein), zirconia-reinforced
lithiumsilicate ceramics (Celtra Duo PC/FC, Dentsply Sirona, Konstanz, Germany), zirco-
nia (Cercon ht, Dentsply Sirona, Konstanz, Germany), and cast gold (Degunorm, Degudent,
Hanau, Germany). Endocrowns (PC/FC) were manufactured using e.max CAD. Etchable
ceramics were adhesively luted (AdheSE Universal/Variolink Esthetic, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein), zirconia was luted with a self-adhesive resin compos-
ite cement (RelyX Unicem 2), and cast gold was luted using Ketac Cem (3M Oral Healthcare,
Seefeld, Germany). Figure 5 shows the complete methodology, compositions of involved
materials are shown in Table 1. CAD/CAM restorations were computed with Cerec 3-D
(Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), cast gold was made on traditional dies, zirconia was sintered
according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. PC preparations for indirect restora-
tions were carried out as previously described (Figures 4 and 6), cast gold preparations
were carried out with step and bevel (Figure 4).
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 5 of 12
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 12

Figure5.5.Experimental
Figure Experimentalsetset
upup
of of
thethe
study. Abbreviations:
study. F: Filling,
Abbreviations: DPC:
F: Filling, direct
DPC: partial
direct crown,
partial PC: Partial
crown, crown,crown,
PC: Partial RC: resin
RC:
composite, FRC: Fiber-reinforced resin composite, EM: e.max CAD, CD: Celtra Duo, CG: Cast gold, ZI: Zirconia, EC: endocrown.
resin composite, FRC: Fiber-reinforced resin composite, EM: e.max CAD, CD: Celtra Duo, CG: Cast gold, ZI: Zirconia, EC:
endocrown.
Thermomechanical loading of all specimens including controls was carried out in a
chewing simulator
Indirect (CS4groups
adhesive professional line, SDwith
were treated Mechatronik, Feldkirchen,
milled lithium disilicateGermany)
ceramics under
(e.max
water. Liquids such as artificial saliva were not used in order not to falsify marginal
CAD PC/FC, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein), zirconia-reinforced
quality. Each restored
lithiumsilicate tooth
ceramics was mounted
(Celtra Duo PC/FC, in one simulator
Dentsply chamber
Sirona, beingGermany),
Konstanz, hit by a steatite
zirco-
antagonist (6 mm diameter, Figure 7b) obliquely chewing on cusps for
nia (Cercon ht, Dentsply Sirona, Konstanz, Germany), and cast gold (Degunorm, 1,200,000 cycles
at 100 N at a frequency of 0.5 Hz after having been thermocycled 300,000× at +5 ◦ C and
Degudent, Hanau, Germany). Endocrowns (PC/FC) were manufactured using e.max
+55 ◦ C (THE 1100, SD Mechatronik, Feldkirchen, Germany). The mechanics as well as
CAD. Etchable ceramics were adhesively luted (AdheSE Universal/Variolink Esthetic,
water temperature within the chewing chambers were periodically reassured for reliable
Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Principality of Liechtenstein), zirconia was luted with a self-
thermomechanical loading (TML). Finally, each specimen was stressed using a universal
adhesive resin composite cement (RelyX Unicem 2), and cast gold was luted using Ketac
testing machine (Zwicki, Zwick, Ulm, Germany) with the same antagonist material, the
Cem (3M Oral Healthcare, Seefeld, Germany). Figure 5 shows the complete methodology,
loading cell travelled at 0.5mm/min statically until fracture. Fractured restorations were
compositions of involved materials are shown in Table 1. CAD/CAM restorations were
photographed (Figure 7).
computed with Cerec 3-D (Sirona, Bensheim, Germany), cast gold was made on tradi-
tional dies, zirconia was sintered according to the manufacturer’s recommendations. PC
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 6 of 12

Table 1. Materials under investigation.

Restorative Material Classification Composition (%wt) Manufacturer


Dimethacrylate, prepolymer, Barium Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill Nanohybrid resin composite glass, Ytterbiumtrifluoride, mixed Principality of
oxides, initiators, stabilizators Liechtenstein
(1-Methylethyliden) bis
[4,1-phenyleneoxy (2-hydroxy-3,
1-propanediyl)] bismethacrylate,
Fiber-reinforced 2,20 -Ethylenedioxydiethyldimethacrylat,
everX flow posterior
bulk-fill composite Diphenyl(2,4,6-trimethylbenzoyl)
phosphinoxid, 6-T
ert-butyl-2,4-xylenol 0.2%, short glass
fibers, barium glass
7,7,9(or 7,9,9)-trimethyl-4,
13-dioxo-3,14-dioxa-5, GC Germany, Bad
12-diazahexadecane-1,16-diyl Homburg, Germany
bismethacrylate, Ytterbium
trifluoride, (octahydro-
4,7-methano-1H-indenediyl) bis
Essentia Universal Fine hybrid resin composite (methylene) bismethacrylate,
Esterification products of
4,40 -isopropylidenediphenol,
ethoxylated and
2- methylprop-2-enoic acid,
2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-p-cresol,
glass fillers
Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
SiO2, Li2 O, K2 O, P2 O5 , ZrO2 , ZnO,
e.max CAD Lithium disilicate ceramic Principality of
ZnO, Al2 O3 , MgO
Liechtenstein
Zirconia-reinforced lithium Dentsply Sirona,
Celtra Duo Lithium silicate with 10% ZrO2
silicate ceramic Konstanz, Germany
zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide,
Dentsply Sirona,
Cercon ht Zirconia hafnium oxide, Aluminum oxide,
Konstanz, Germany
Silicon oxide
73.8% Au, 9% Pt, 9.2% Ag, 4.4% Cu, Degudent, Hanau,
Degunorm Cast gold
2% Zn, 1.5% In, 0.1% Ir Germany
Luting Material
Etchant: 36% phosphoric acid
Universal adhesive: 10-MDP,
GC Germany, Bad
G-Premio Bond 2-step universal adhesive 4-META, 10-MDTP, methacrylate acid
Homburg, Germany
ester, distilled water, acetone,
initiators fine powdered silica
Etchant: 36% phosphoric acid
Universal adhesive: 2-hydroxyethyl
methacrylate, Bis-GMA, Ethanol,
AdheSE Universal 2-step universal adhesive 1,10-decandiol dimethacrylate,
methacrylated phosphoric acid ester,
campherquinone, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan,
2-dimethylaminoethyl mathacrylate Principality of
Base: Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, Liechtenstein
fillers, ytterbium trifluoride,
stabilizers, pigments
Variolink Esthetic Luting resin composite Catalyst: Bis-GMA, UDMA,
TEGDMA, fillers, ytterbium
trifluoride, stabilizers, pigments,
benzoyl peroxide
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 7 of 12

Table 1. Cont.

Restorative Material Classification Composition (%wt) Manufacturer


Base: methacrylate monomers with
phosphpric acid groups, methacrylate
monomers, silanated fillers, initiator
components, rheological additives
RelyX Unicem 2 Self-adhesive resin cement
Catalyst: methacrylate monomers,
3M Oral Healthcare,
alkaline fillers, silanated fillers,
Seefeld, Germany
initiator compoments, stabilizers,
Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW pigments, rheological additives 6 of 12

Powder: calcium FASG


Ketac Cem Luting glass ionomer cement Liquid: copolymer of acrylic and
preparations for indirect restorations wereacid
maleic carried out as previously described (Figures 4
+ water
and 6), cast gold preparations were carried out with step and bevel (Figure 4).

Materials 2021, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 12


Figure 6. Schematic drawing of replaced cups in the ceramic groups.
Figure 6. Schematic drawing of replaced cups in the ceramic groups.
Table 1. Materials under investigation.

Restorative
Classification Composition (%wt) Manufacturer
Material
Dimethacrylate, prepolymer, Barium glass, Ivoclar Vivadent,
Tetric EvoCeram Nanohybrid resin
Ytterbiumtrifluoride, mixed oxides, initiators, Schaan, Principality of
Bulk Fill composite
stabilizators Liechtenstein
(1-Methylethyliden) bis [4,1-phenyleneoxy (2-
hydroxy-3,1- propanediyl)] bismethacrylate, 2,2′-
everX flow Fiber-reinforced
Ethylenedioxydiethyldimethacrylat, Diphenyl(2,4,6-
posterior bulk-fill composite
trimethylbenzoyl) phosphinoxid, 6-T ert-butyl-2,4-
xylenol 0.2%, short glass fibers, barium glass
7,7,9(or 7,9,9)-trimethyl-4,13-dioxo-3,14-dioxa-5,12-
GC Germany, Bad
diazahexadecane-1,16-diyl bismethacrylate,
Homburg, Germany
Ytterbium trifluoride, (octahydro-4,7-methano-1H-
Essentia Fine hybrid resin indenediyl) bis (methylene) bismethacrylate,
Universal composite Esterification products of 4,4′-
isopropylidenediphenol, ethoxylated and 2-
methylprop-2-enoic acid, 2-(2H-benzotriazol-2-yl)-p-
cresol, glass fillers
Ivoclar
Figure 7. Images of fractured specimens. In every failed restoration, catastrophic fractures were recorded, Vivadent,
either vertical
Figure 7. Images ofLithium
fractureddisilicate
specimens. In every failed restoration, catastrophic fractures were recorded, either vertical (a)
e.max
(a) CAD (b).
or oblique SiO2, Li2O, K2O, P2O5, ZrO2, ZnO, ZnO, Al2O3, MgO Schaan, Principality of
or oblique (b). ceramic
Liechtenstein
Zirconia-reinforced
Dentsply Sirona,
Celtra Duo lithium silicate Lithium silicate with 10% ZrO2
Konstanz, Germany
ceramic
zirconium oxide, yttrium oxide, hafnium oxide, Dentsply Sirona,
Cercon ht Zirconia
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 8 of 12

Both Initially and after completed TML, impressions of the specimens were taken
(Provil Novo, Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany) and replicas (Alpha Die, Schütz Dental,
Rosbach, Germany) manufactured. The completed replicas were mounted on aluminum
stubs, sputter-coated with gold and examined under a SEM (Phenom, FEI, Amsterdam,
The Netherlands) at ×200 magnification. SEM examination was performed by one operator
with experience with quantitative margin analysis having been blinded to the restorative
procedures. Marginal quality of interfaces (enamel-resin composite, dentin-resin composite,
enamel-luting material, dentin-luting material) was expressed as a percentage of the
individual margin length in enamel and dentin. Marginal integrity was scored according
to the criteria “gap-free margin”, “gap/irregularity” and “not judgeable/artifact” where
applicable, i.e., in full crown specimens, no enamel was available (Figure 8). Afterwards the
percentage “gap-free margin” in relation to the individual judgeable margin was calculated as
Figure 7. Images of fractured specimens.
marginal qualityIn [19,26],
every failed restoration,
i.e., all catastrophic
visible changes fractures were as
were characterized recorded, either vertical
“non-gap-free margins”.
(a) or oblique (b).

Figure 8. SEM image of marginal gap between dentin (D) and resin composite (RC), 200× magnifi-
Figure 8. SEM image of marginal gap between dentin (D) and resin composite (RC), 200× magnification.
cation.
To compute statistics, Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to show normal distribution
To compute
of values, statistics,
so parametric Kolmogorov–Smirnov
statistical test was
analyses were taken used toANOVA
(One-way show normal distribu-
and post hoc
tion of values, so parametric statistical analyses were taken (One-way ANOVA
Tukey–Kramer test), considering the preparation and restoration techniques as variable.and post
hoc Tukey–Kramer test), considering the preparation and restoration
The significance level was set as 5% (SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).techniques as vari-
able. The significance level was set as 5% (SPSS 15.0, SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
3. Results
3. Results
The results are displayed in Table 2. In the direct groups, there was no difference
between TheRCresults
and FRCare in
displayed in Table(p2.>In
fracture strength the however,
0.05); direct groups, there was significantly
DPC performed no difference
between
better RC andto
compared FRCMOD in fracture
fillingsstrength (p >Regarding
(p < 0.05). 0.05); however, DPC performed
marginal significantly
quality in enamel, in-
better compared
tracoronal to MOD fillings
FRC restorations (p <a0.05).
exhibited higher Regarding
portion ofmarginal
gap-freequality
margins in compared
enamel, intra-
to
coronal FRC restorations exhibited a higher portion of gap-free margins
RC restorations (p < 0.05). In all other groups, no technique was superior in giving good compared to RC
restorations
marginal (p < 0.05).
adaptation In all
after other groups,(p
fatigue-loading no>technique
0.05) withwas
onesuperior
exceptionin (zirconia
giving good mar-
partial
ginal adaptation
crowns aftersignificantly
in enamel with fatigue-loading
lower > 0.05)p with
(pscores; oneAlthough
< 0.05). exceptionmarginal
(zirconia partial
quality
significantly droppedwith
crowns in enamel aftersignificantly
TML (p < 0.05), it remained
lower scores; p stable at Although
< 0.05). a very highmarginal
level (Table 1).
quality
In the indirect groups, there was no significant difference between partial and full
crowns in any of the adhesively luted ceramic groups e.max and Celtra Duo regarding
post-fatigue fracture resistance (p > 0.05). Fully adhesive ceramic restorations gave similar
post-fatigue fracture strengths as direct partial crowns of RC and FRC (p > 0.05). Groups
with cuspal coverage in general performed better than intracoronal restorations (p < 0.05), being
in different significance levels though, but at a generally high level throughout the groups.
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 9 of 12

Table 2. Results [N] ± SD for fracture strength and results [%] (SD) for marginal quality as percentage of “gap-free margins”.

Fracture Strength Gap-Free Margins Gap-Free Margins Gap-Free Margins Gap-Free Margins
Group after TML Enamel Initial Enamel after TML Dentin Initial Dentin after TML
in N ± SD in %(SD) in %(SD) in %(SD) in %(SD)
Control 806 ± 190 B n/a n/a 100 n/a
RC-F 382 ± 83 D 100 82 (13) B 100 n/a
RC-DPC 688 ± 186 C 100 88 (9) A 100 n/a
FRC-F 402 ± 110 D 100 89 (10) A 100 n/a
FRC-DPC 699 ± 178 C 100 93 (9) A 100 n/a
EM-PC 723 ± 188 C 100 95 (7) A 100 n/a
EM-FC 736 ± 160 C n/a n/a 100 95 (5) A
CD-PC 702 ± 167 C 100 93 (9) A 100 n/a
CD-FC 733 ± 152 C n/a n/a 100 96 (4) A
ZI-PC 702 ± 143 C 100 76 (23) C * 100 n/a
ZI-FC 921 ± 102 A n/a n/a 100 94 (8) A
CG-PC 934 ± 172 A 100 90 (5) A 100 n/a
CG-FC 956 ± 200 A n/a n/a 100 93 (5) A
EC-PC 689 ± 175 C 100 88 (12) A 100 n/a
EC-FC 734 ± 197 C n/a n/a 100 94 (5) A
*: compared to the other groups under investigation, in this group marginal irregularities were predominantly recorded between enamel
and luting composite. Superscript letters: Same letters mean p > 0.05 within columns. Before and after TML, a significant decrease in
marginal quality was recorded in all groups (p < 0.05).

Zirconia FC as well as cast gold PC/FC yielded the highest post-fatigue fracture
resistance being even superior to sound teeth of the control group (p < 0.05).

4. Discussion
As mentioned in the introduction, clinical trials remain the ultimate instrument in
restorative dentistry [2,4,11,14]. Main disadvantage of these trials is that some interesting
experimental groups may not be accepted by IRBs due to their explorative and less data-
supported character. Therefore, it still makes sense in biomaterials research to simulate
clinical circumstances to predict clinical behavior [12,16,20,25,27,29]. Additionally, when
this is performed meticulously, it remains an in vitro study with several limitations such as
standardized loading, lack of sliding bruxism, and more or less rigid fixation during TML.
Regarding the restoration of vital teeth, overall sealing properties, abrasion char-
acteristics, and biological issues such as biodegradation and absence of postoperative
hypersensitivities are of primary interest [1,4,26]. With ETT, fracture behavior was reg-
ularly investigated because 27% of clinical failures have been linked to any kind of frac-
ture [14,15,27,28]. In this context, fatigue-loading has significantly gained importance for
both evaluation of long-term adhesion and fracture resistance [19,26,29]. Clinical record-
ings showed average masticatory forces around 20 MPa with dramatically higher peak
load [5,10,15,29]. At least empirically, a lower threshold level for tactile sensitivity was re-
ported for ETT. Although this was not completely confirmed in the literature, it is common
sense that ETT exhibit a significantly higher fracture risk compared to vital teeth [15,28,29].
The main reason for increased fracture risk of ETT is their intentional hard tissue reduction
during endodontic access cavity and root canal preparation [6,7,10]. This may be the reason
for the observation that full crown preparations are recommended for ETT, also when
focusing on clinical outcome of direct restorations of ETT [10–13].
The methodology of this in vitro study obviously gave reproducible results with
different materials, also matching several clinical observations, and having been success-
fully established since >25 years [19,26]. Long-term thermomechanical fatigue-loading
is estimated to be closer to intraoral conditions compared to ultimate loading until frac-
ture [26]. Compared to previous investigations on “vital” teeth, both higher fatigue load
and increased number of thermomechanical load cycles was chosen as shown before [19].
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 10 of 12

The chosen restorative materials were traditional vs. recent biomaterials. The first null
hypothesis was that conventional resin composites and fiber-reinforced composites would
behave similar, although reports about short-fiber-reinforced composite were favorable [30].
The similarity in in vitro performance, however, correlated well with biomechanical prop-
erties of the investigated materials. It could be again shown that partial coverage was more
effective in both marginal and fracture behavior in the direct groups (p < 0.05). Between
the groups RC and FRC, no statistically different results occured in post-fatigue fracture
resistance; however, there was a significantly higher portion of gap-free margins in enamel
when the fiber-reinforced dentin substitute everX posterior was used as in intracoronal
restorations (p < 0.05). In all other criteria, there was no beneficial effect of short-fiber-
reinforced composite (p > 0.05). As in the previous investigation, it could not be confirmed
that resin-based materials give less catastrophic failures compared to e.g., ceramics. Alto-
gether the opposite seems to be true, the advantage of direct restorations to be less invasive
did not result in superior post-fatigue resistance, because indirect approaches were more
effective in general during the present in vitro investigation.
So finally, both null hypotheses had to be accepted because the type of direct material
had no impact on fracture strength, and there was no considerable difference between
partial crown and full crown preparation in most of the test groups, so the less invasive
partial crown can also be recommended for restoration of ETT. Altogether, previous findings
could be confirmed that cuspal coverage as well as full crowns perform best with a clear
advantage for cast gold restorations as partial or full crown.

5. Conclusions
Within the limits of this in vitro investigation, it can be concluded that any kind of
indirect restoration with cuspal coverage is suitable for the restoration of ETT when a
certain cavity extension is exceeded. All indirect restorations, i.e., endocrowns, partial
crowns, and full crowns showed a promising performance after in vitro fatigue-loading.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, R.F. and M.N.; Data curation, M.N. and S.A.; Investiga-
tion, M.-C.D. and J.W.; Methodology, R.F. and M.J.R.; Project administration, J.W.; Supervision, N.K.;
Writing—original draft, R.F.; Writing—review & editing, A.B. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the
Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Ethics Committee of JLU Giessen (143/09).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: R.F. received research grants and lecture honorarium from Dentsply Sirona,
Ivoclar, GC, and 3M. N.K. received research grants and lecture honorarium from Dentsply Sirona,
GC, and 3M. All other authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References
1. Opdam, N.J.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Loomans, B.A.; Huysmans, M.C. 12-year Survival of Composite vs. Amalgam Restorations. J.
Dent. Res. 2010, 89, 1063–1067. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Opdam, N.J.; van de Sande, F.H.; Bronkhorst, E.; Cenci, M.S.; Bottenberg, P.; Pallesen, U.; Gaengler, P.; Lindberg, A.; Huysmans,
M.C.; van Dijken, J.W. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. Res. 2014,
93, 943–949. [CrossRef]
3. Van Dijken, J.W.; Pallesen, U. A randomized 10-year prospective follow-up of Class II nanohybrid and conventional hybrid resin
composite restorations. J. Adhes Dent. 2014, 16, 585–592. [PubMed]
4. Da Rosa Rodolpho, P.A.; Donassollo, T.A.; Cenci, M.S.; Loguercio, A.D.; Moraes, R.R.; Bronkhorst, E.M.; Opdam, N.J.;
Demarco, F.F. 22-Year clinical evaluation of the performance of two posterior composites with different filler characteristics. Dent.
Mater. 2011, 27, 955–963. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 11 of 12

5. Dammaschke, T.; Nykiel, K.; Sagheri, D.; Schäfer, E. Influence of coronal restorations on the fracture resistance of root canal-treated
premolar and molar teeth: A retrospective study. Aust. Endod. J. 2013, 39, 48–56. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
6. Dietschi, D.; Duc, O.; Krejci, I.; Sadan, A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A
systematic review of the literature—Part 1. Composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007, 38,
733–743.
7. Dietschi, D.; Duc, O.; Krejci, I.; Sadan, A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A
systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008,
39, 117–129.
8. Eliyas, S.; Jalili, J.; Martin, N. Restoration of the root canal treated tooth. Br. Dent. J. 2015, 218, 53–62. [CrossRef]
9. Fuss, Z.; Lustig, J.; Tamse, A. Prevalence of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int. Endod. J. 1999, 32,
283–286. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Gutmann, J.L. The dentin-root complex: Anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J.
Prosthet. Dent. 1992, 67, 458–467. [CrossRef]
11. Borén, D.L.; Jonasson, P.; Kvist, T. Long-term Survival of Endodontically Treated Teeth at a Public Dental Specialist Clinic. J.
Endod. 2015, 41, 176–181. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Mannocci, F. Research that matters: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Int. Endod. J. 2013, 46, 389–390. [CrossRef]
13. Mannocci, F.; Cowie, J. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Br. Dent. J. 2014, 216, 341–346. [CrossRef]
14. Touré, B.; Faye, B.; Kane, A.W.; Lo, C.M.; Niang, B.; Boucher, Y. Analysis of Reasons for Extraction of Endodontically Treated
Teeth: A Prospective Study. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1512–1515. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Nagasiri, R.; Chitmongkolsuk, S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: A retrospective
cohort study. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2005, 93, 164–170. [CrossRef]
16. Schneider, B.-J.; Freitag-Wolf, S.; Kern, M. Tactile sensitivity of vital and endodontically treated teeth. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 1422–1427.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Seow, L.L.; Toh, C.G.; Wilson, N.H. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored
with all-ceramic restorations. J. Dent. 2015, 43, 126–132. [CrossRef]
18. Yu, W.; Guo, K.; Zhang, B.; Weng, W. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with lithium disilicate
CAD/CAM crowns or onlays and luted with two luting agents. Dent. Mater. J. 2014, 33, 349–354. [CrossRef]
19. Zamin, C.; Silva-Sousa, Y.T.C.; Souza-Gabriel, A.E.; Messias, D.F.; Sousa-Neto, M.D. Fracture susceptibility of endodontically
treated teeth. Dent. Traumatol. 2012, 28, 282–286. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
20. Frankenberger, R.; Zeilinger, I.; Krech, M.; Mörig, G.; Naumann, M.; Braun, A.; Krämer, N.; Roggendorf, M.J. Stability of
endodontically treated teeth with differently invasive restorations: Adhesive vs. non-adhesive cusp stabilization. Dent. Mater.
2015, 31, 1312–1320. [CrossRef]
21. Einhorn, M.; DuVall, N.; Wajdowicz, M.; Brewster, J.; Roberts, H. Preparation Ferrule Design Effect on Endocrown Failure
Resistance. J. Prosthodont. 2019, 28, e237–e242. [CrossRef]
22. Kassis, C.; Khoury, P.; Mehanna, C.Z.; Baba, N.Z.; Chebel, F.B.; Daou, M.; Hardan, L. Effect of Inlays, Onlays and Endocrown
Cavity Design Preparation on Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study. J.
Prosthodont. 2021, 30, 625–631. [CrossRef]
23. Papalexopoulos, D.; Samartzi, T.-K.; Sarafianou, A. A Thorough Analysis of the Endocrown Restoration: A Literature Review. J.
Contemp. Dent. Pract. 2021, 22, 422–426. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Zheng, Z.; He, Y.; Ruan, W.; Ling, Z.; Zheng, C.; Gai, Y.; Yan, W. Biomechanical behavior of endocrown restorations with different
CAD-CAM materials: A 3D finite element and in vitro analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021, 125, 890–899. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Sedrez-Porto, J.A.; Rosa, W.L.; da Silva, A.F.; Münchow, E.A.; Pereira-Cenci, T. Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and
meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2016, 52, 8–14. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
26. Tribst, J.P.M.; Lo Giudice, R.; Dos Santos, A.F.C.; Borges, A.L.S.; Silva-Concílio, L.R.; Amaral, M.; Lo Giudice, G. Lithium Disilicate
Ceramic Endocrown Biomechanical Response According to Different Pulp Chamber Extension Angles and Filling Materials.
Materials 2021, 14, 1307. [CrossRef]
27. Frankenberger, R.; Kramer, N.; Lohbauer, U.; Nikolaenko, S.A.; Reich, S.M. Marginal integrity: Is the clinical performance of
bonded restorations predictable in vitro? J. Adhes Dent. 2007, 9 (Suppl. 1), 107–116.
28. Setzer, F.C.; Boyer, K.R.; Jeppson, J.R.; Karabucak, B.; Kim, S. Long-term prognosis of endodontically treated teeth: A retrospective
analysis of preoperative factors in molars. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 21–25. [CrossRef]
29. Skupien, J.A.; Opdam, N.; Winnen, R.; Bronkhorst, E.; Kreulen, C.; Pereira-Cenci, T.; Huysmans, M.C. A practice-based study on
the survival of restored endodontically treated teeth. J. Endod. 2013, 39, 1335–1340. [CrossRef]
30. Carvalho, M.A.; Lazari, P.C.; Gresnigt, M.; Del Bel Cury, A.A.; Magne, P. Current options concerning the endodontically-treated
teeth restoration with the adhesive approach. Braz. Oral Res. 2018, 32, e74. [CrossRef]
31. Scotti, N.; Michelotto Tempesta, R.; Pasqualini, D.; Baldi, A.; Vergano, E.A.; Baldissara, P.; Alovisi, M.; Comba, A. 3D Interfacial
Gap and Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars Restored with Fiber-reinforced Composites. J. Adhes Dent.
2020, 22, 215–224. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Materials 2021, 14, 7733 12 of 12

32. Eapen, A.M.; Amirtharaj, L.V.; Sanjeev, K.; Mahalaxmi, S. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with 2
Different Fiber-reinforced Composite and 2 Conventional Composite Resin Core Buildup Materials: An in Vitro Study. J. Endod.
2017, 43, 1499–1504. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
33. Shah, S.; Shilpa-Jain, D.P.; Velmurugan, N.; Sooriaprakas, C.; Krithikadatta, J. Performance of fibre reinforced composite as a
post-endodontic restoration on different endodontic cavity designs- an in-vitro study. J. Mech. Behav. Biomed. Mater. 2020, 104, 103650.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]

You might also like