nach oben

Erschienen in:

17.06.2022 | Original Article

Fracture resistance and biomechanical behavior of different access cavities of maxillary central incisors restored with different composite resins

verfasst von: Amjad Abu Hasna, Alana Barbosa Alves Pinto, Marcelle Simões Coelho, Guilherme Schmitt de Andrade, João Paulo Mendes Tribst, Sergio Lucio Pereira de Castro Lopes, Cláudio Antonio Talge Carvalho, Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges

Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Ausgabe 10/2022

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of three different access cavities on the tissue removal, deflection, fracture resistance, and stress distribution of extracted maxillary central incisors.

Materials and methods

Forty human maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned in four experimental group (n = 10) including conservative access cavity “CAC,” traditional access cavity “TAC,” invasive access cavity “IAC,” and without access cavity (control group). Cone-beam computed tomography “CBCT” scans were used to evaluate the tissue removal during the different access cavities. All specimens were restored with composite resin (Admira Fusion, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and embedded in acrylic resin blocks after simulating the periodontal ligament using red wax, then the specimens were submitted to the deflection test applying a load of 250 N and to the load-to-fracture test after artificial aging in a mechanical cycling machine (150 N, 5 × 10⁶ cycles, 10 Hz). Lastly, stress distribution was assessed by three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA), simulating the specimens restoration by two types of composite resins of low and high elastic modulus (8 and 18 GPa respectively) after the access cavities. The data were submitted to Shapiro–Wilk and KS normality tests. Then, they were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests with a significance level (α ≤ 0.05).

Results

CBCT scans showed a significant difference of worn tissues in CAC and TAC when compared to the IAC (P < 0.0001). In deflection test, CAC showed lower deformation values than the TAC and IAC. Load-to-fracture test presented no significant difference among the three experimental groups (P = 0.6901). 3D-FEA showed that the more conservative the access cavity, the higher the stress magnitude.

Conclusions

CAC promote less worn tissue; however, this does not improve the stress distribution or fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary incisors.

Clinical relevance

Clinicians should reconsider the pros and cons of the conservative access cavity.

Schilder H (1974) Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 18:269–296CrossRef

Yared G (2004) In vitro study of the torsional properties of new and used ProFile nickel titanium rotary files. J Endod 30:410–412. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200406000-00008CrossRefPubMed

Yared G (2015) Canal preparation with nickel-titanium or stainless steel instruments without the risk of instrument fracture: preliminary observations. Restor Dent Endod 40:85–90. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.1.85CrossRefPubMed

Usman N, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG (2004) Influence of instrument size on root canal debridement. J Endod 30:110–112. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200402000-00012CrossRefPubMed

Trope M, Ray HL (1992) Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 73:99–102CrossRef

Santos T da SA, Abu Hasna A, Abreu RT et al (2022) Fracture resistance and stress distribution of weakened teeth reinforced with a bundled glass fiber–reinforced resin post. Clin Oral Investig 26:1725–1735. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-021-04148-4CrossRefPubMed

Zelic K, Vukicevic A, Jovicic G et al (2015) Mechanical weakening of devitalized teeth: three-dimensional finite element analysis and prediction of tooth fracture. Int Endod J 48:850–863. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12381CrossRefPubMed

Clark D, Khademi JA (2010) Case studies in modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 54:275–289. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.003CrossRefPubMed

Vieira GCS, Pérez AR, Alves FRF et al (2020) Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on root canal disinfection and shaping. J Endod 46:655–661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.02.002CrossRefPubMed

10.

Silva EJNL, Pinto KP, Ferreira CM et al (2020) Current status on minimal access cavity preparations: a critical analysis and a proposal for a universal nomenclature. Int Endod J 53:1618–1635. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13391CrossRefPubMed

11.

Levin HJ (1967) Access cavities. Dent Clin North Am 701–710

12.

Bürklein S, Schäfer E (2015) Minimally invasive endodontics. Quintessence Int 46:119–124. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a33047CrossRefPubMed

13.

Abu Hasna A, Pereira Da Silva L, Pelegrini FC et al (2020) Effect of sodium hypochlorite solution and gel with/without passive ultrasonic irrigation on Enterococcus faecalis. Escherichia coli and their endotoxins. F1000Res 9:642. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.24721.1CrossRefPubMed

14.

Abu Hasna A, Monteiro JB, Abreu RT et al (2021) Effect of passive ultrasonic irrigation over organic tissue of simulated internal root resorption. Int J Dent 2021:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/3130813CrossRef

15.

De Andrade GS, Tribst JPM, Orozco EI et al (2020) Influence of different post-endodontic restorations on the fatigue survival and biomechanical behavior of central incisors. Am J Dent 33:227–234PubMed

16.

Sano H, Shono T, Sonoda H et al (1994) Relationship between surface area for adhesion and tensile bond strength–evaluation of a micro-tensile bond test. Dent Mater 10:236–240CrossRef

17.

Rubin C, Krishnamurthy N, Capilouto E, Yi H (1983) Stress analysis of the human tooth using a three-dimensional finite element model. J Dent Res 62:82–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345830620021701CrossRefPubMed

18.

Borges ALS, Costa AKF, Dal Piva AM et al (2021) Effect of three different veneering techniques on the stress distribution and in vitro fatigue behavior of core-veneer all-ceramic fixed partial dentures. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 15(188):34. https://doi.org/10.34172/joddd.2021.032CrossRef

19.

Farah JW, Dougherty EW (1981) Unfilled, filled, and microfilled composite resins. Oper Dent 6:95–99PubMed

20.

Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G et al (2004) Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 31:18–22. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.xCrossRefPubMed

21.

Saber SM, Hayaty DM, Nawar NN, Kim H-C (2020) The effect of access cavity designs and sizes of root canal preparations on the biomechanical behavior of an endodontically treated mandibular first molar: a finite element analysis. J Endod 46:1675–1681. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.06.040CrossRefPubMed

22.

Isufi A, Plotino G, Grande NM et al (2020) Standardization of endodontic access cavities based on 3-dimensional quantitative analysis of dentin and enamel removed. J Endod 46:1495–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.07.015CrossRefPubMed

23.

Sarvaiya UP, Rudagi K, Joseph J (2020) A comparative evaluation of the effect of different access cavity designs on root canal instrumentation efficacy and resistance to fracture assessed on maxillary central incisors: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 23:609–614. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_600_20CrossRefPubMed

24.

Barbosa AFA, Silva EJNL, Coelho BP et al (2020) The influence of endodontic access cavity design on the efficacy of canal instrumentation, microbial reduction, root canal filling and fracture resistance in mandibular molars. Int Endod J 53:1666–1679. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13383CrossRefPubMed

25.

Ramachandran P, PradeepKumar AR, Ravishankar P, Kishen A (2020) In vivo strain alterations in mandibular molars after root canal treatment procedures. J Endod 46:1849–1855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.07.021CrossRefPubMed

26.

Maske A, Weschenfelder VM, Soares Grecca Vilella F et al (2021) Influence of access cavity design on fracture strength of endodontically treated lower molars. Aust Endod J 47:5–10. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12446CrossRefPubMed

27.

Saeed M, Al-Obadi M, Salim A et al (2021) Impact of access cavity design on fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars: a systematic review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 13:1–10. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S287995CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

28.

Santosh SS, Ballal S, Natanasabapathy V (2021) Influence of minimally invasive access cavity designs on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars subjected to thermocycling and dynamic loading. J Endod 47:1496–1500. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2021.06.020CrossRefPubMed

29.

Sabeti M, Kazem M, Dianat O et al (2018) Impact of access cavity design and root canal taper on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: an ex vivo investigation. J Endod 44:1402–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.05.006CrossRefPubMed

30.

Zhang Y, Liu Y, She Y et al (2019) The effect of endodontic access cavities on fracture resistance of first maxillary molar using the extended finite element method. J Endod 45:316–321. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.12.006CrossRefPubMed

31.

Liu Z-Y, Zhao L, Yang L-Y, Gao X (2019) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of different endodontic access methods and full crown restoration in the maxillary central incisor. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 37:642–647. https://doi.org/10.7518/hxkq.2019.06.013CrossRefPubMed

32.

Benetti AR, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A, Flury S (2014) Resin composites: modulus of elasticity and marginal quality. J Dent 42:1185–1192. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.07.004CrossRefPubMed

33.

Özyürek T, Ülker Ö, Demiryürek EÖ, Yılmaz F (2018) The effects of endodontic access cavity preparation design on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth: traditional versus conservative preparation. J Endod 44:800–805. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.020CrossRefPubMed

34.

Freitas GR, Ribeiro TM, Vilella FSG, de Melo TAF (2021) Influence of endodontic cavity access on curved root canal preparation with ProDesign Logic rotary instruments. Clin Oral Investig 25:469–475. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03390-6CrossRefPubMed

35.

Jurema AL, Penteado MM, Tribst JP et al (2020) Effect of glass-fiber post on the biomechanical behavior of teeth with direct veneers. Brazi Dent Sci 30(1):7. https://doi.org/10.14295/bds.2020.v23i3.1969CrossRef

Titel: Fracture resistance and biomechanical behavior of different access cavities of maxillary central incisors restored with different composite resins
verfasst von: Amjad Abu Hasna
Alana Barbosa Alves Pinto
Marcelle Simões Coelho
Guilherme Schmitt de Andrade
João Paulo Mendes Tribst
Sergio Lucio Pereira de Castro Lopes
Cláudio Antonio Talge Carvalho
Alexandre Luiz Souto Borges
Publikationsdatum: 17.06.2022
Verlag: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Ausgabe 10/2022
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Elektronische ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-022-04581-z

Modified coronally advanced tunnel versus epithelialized free gingival graft technique in gingival phenotype modification: a comparative randomized controlled clinical trial

Original Article

Force delivery modification of removable thermoplastic appliances using Hilliard precision thermopliers for tipping an upper central incisor

Open Access
Original Article

A retrospective clinical study of fixed tooth- and implant-supported prostheses in titanium and cobalt-chromium-ceramic: 5–9-year follow-up

Open Access
Original Article

Correction to: Force delivery modification of removable thermoplastic appliances using Hilliard precision thermopliers for tipping an upper central incisor

Open Access
Correction

Correction to: Eight‑year clinical evaluation of two types of resin composite in non‑carious cervical lesions

Correction

How is the quality of the available evidence on molar-incisor hypomineralization treatment? An overview of systematic reviews

Review

Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin

Das alles ändert sich für Arztpraxen in 2025

31.12.2024
EBM
Nachrichten

Ab Januar greifen jede Menge Neuerungen – ob im EBM, Arbeits- und Steuerrecht oder bei der digitalen Vernetzung. Darunter einige Verbesserungen, aber teils auch Mehraufwand. „Same procedure as every year?“ – Ein Überblick.

Wie gefährlich sind suspekte Veränderungen in der Mundhöhle?

17.12.2024
Mundhöhlenkarzinom
Nachrichten

Wie hoch ist das Risiko, dass sich aus einer bereits verdächtigen Veränderung der Mundschleimhaut ein Karzinom entwickelt? Ein US-Team hat dazu das Patientenregister der Universität San Francisco ausgewertet.

Das deutsche Gesundheitssystem kränkelt und hat Fieber

22.11.2024
Gesundheitspolitik
Nachrichten

OECD und Europäische Kommission haben zusammen einen Bericht zum Zustand der europäischen Gesundheitssysteme herausgegeben. Diagnose für Deutschland: Wäre das Land ein menschliches Wesen, würde man es wohl krankschreiben.

Elektronische Patientenakte: Wie gut sind Praxen und PVS gerüstet?

08.11.2024
Elektronische Patientenakte
Nachrichten

Lauterbachs Zeitplan steht: Ab dem 15. Januar wird die E-Patientenakte zunächst in Modellregionen starten. Vier Wochen später soll der bundesweite Rollout erfolgen. Doch sind Praxisverwaltungssysteme (PVS) und Praxisteams tatsächlich vorbereitet? Erich Gehlen, Vorstandsvorsitzender beim genossenschaftlichen Softwarehaus DURIA, gibt Einblick.

Update Zahnmedizin

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

Newsletter bestellen

Springer Medizin

Fracture resistance and biomechanical behavior of different access cavities of maxillary central incisors restored with different composite resins