RESEARCH AND EDUCATION

Biomechanical behavior of endocrown restorations with

different CAD-CAM materials: A 3D finite element and in vitro
analysis
Ziting Zheng, BS,a Yunyan He, BS,b Wenhao Ruan, BS,c Zhiting Ling, BS,d Chunqing Zheng, BS,e Yawen Gai, BS,f
and Wenjuan Yan, DDS, PhDg

The restoration of endodonti- ABSTRACT

cally treated teeth, which are
affected by a higher risk of
biomechanical failure, remains
a challenge.1,2 Traditionally, a
crown with a post-and-core
has been used, but this pro-
cedure may interfere with the
mechanical resistance of the
tooth structure and increase
the incidence of root
fracture.3,4
Advances in adhesive
techniques and an increasing
emphasis on minimally inva-
sive dentistry have led to new
therapeutic approaches,
including the endocrown, a
monolithic restoration that is
anchored to the pulp chamber
and cavity margins. Macro-
mechanical and micro-
mechanical retention are
obtained from the pulpal walls
Statement of problem. The performance of endocrowns fabricated with different types of
computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials is unclear.
Purpose. The purpose of this finite element analysis (FEA) and in vitro study was to compare and
evaluate the stress distribution, failure probability, and fracture resistance of endodontically treated
teeth restored with endocrowns from CAD-CAM milling blocks including ceramic, polymer-
infiltrated ceramic (PICN), and composite resin.
Material and methods. An endodontically treated first mandibular molar restored with an
endocrown was modeled by using a CAD software program and imported into an FEA software
program. The model was duplicated and received restorations made from CAD-CAM blocks: Vita
Suprinity (VS), IPS e.max CAD (EMX), Vita Enamic (VE), Lava Ultimate (LU), and Grandio blocs (GR).
Stress distributions under axial and oblique loading were analyzed. The Weibull function was
combined with the FEA results to predict long-term failure probability. The mechanical failure
behavior of endocrowns manufactured with these materials was tested by using a universal
testing machine. Load-to-failure was recorded, and fractured specimens were subjected to
fractography. The data were analyzed by 1-way ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey test (a=.05).
Results. The models of GR and LU exhibited a more even stress distribution. The Weibull analysis
revealed that 5 models performed in a similar manner under normal occlusal forces, while LU and
VE models achieved the highest probabilities during clenching. The fracture loads of GR (3808 ±607
N) were significantly higher than those of other materials (P<.05). More favorable failure modes
were observed in the GR and VE groups. Fractography showed a greater probability of
compression curls and arrest lines in the endocrowns of VE, LU, and GR groups.
Conclusions. When restoring endodontically treated teeth, endocrown fabricated with composite
resin exhibited a more uniform stress distribution and higher fracture resistance. More evidence
from long-term clinical studies is needed to verify this effect. (J Prosthet Dent 2020;-:---)

Supported by Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province of China (2018A0303130213) and Clinical Research Startup Program of Southern Medical University by
High-level University Construction Funding of Guangdong Provincial Department of Education (LC2016PY023), as well as Clinical Research Program of Nanfang Hospital
Southern Medical University (2018CR018).
a
Graduate student, Graduate Endodontics, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.
b
Nurse-in-charge, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Guangdong, PR China.
c
Graduate student, Graduate Endodontics, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.
d
Graduate student, Graduate Endodontics, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.
e
Graduate student, Graduate Endodontics, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.
f
Graduate student, Graduate Endodontics, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.
g
Professor, Department of Stomatology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, PR China.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY 1

2 Volume
Clinical Implications
The results of this study suggested that GR with a
similar elastic modulus to dentin produced a better
biomechanical behavior, which could achieve
promising long-term outcomes for endocrown
restorations.
and with adhesive cementation.5,6 Computer-aided
design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM)
technology allows the fabrication and placement of the
restoration in a single dental office visit. Endocrowns
have been reported to provide adequate stability and
improved fracture resistance compared with conventional
restorations.7,8 Clinical studies have reported a success
rate of endocrowns between 94% and 100%,9 suggesting
that endocrowns can provide esthetics and function for
endodontically treated teeth.
CAD-CAM materials have been introduced with
improved mechanical properties and excellent optical
properties.10 Ceramic restorations have been popular
because of their esthetics, biocompatibility, and dura-
bility. However, the potential for brittle catastrophic
fracture and the excessive wear to opposing teeth are
considered major deficiencies.1,11-14 Therefore, new
CAD-CAM materials have been developed to combine
the positive properties of polymers which are not brittle
and have the superior esthetics of ceramics.15 Based on
their microstructural geometry, they are classified into 2
main types: High-temperature and high-pressure poly-
mer-infiltrated ceramic network (PICN) material consists
of a dominating feldspathic ceramic and reinforcing
composite matrix and high-temperature polymerized
composite resin with dispersed fillers and a predomi-
nately organic phase.10,16-19 These materials can be easily
machined and do not require the additional treatment of
ceramic staining or crystallization, which can adversely
affect the dimensional accuracy of the definitive resto-
ration.20,21 Additionally, biomimetic properties similar to
those of tooth structure also give these materials good
stress distribution ability and more resistance to higher
occlusal forces.22-28
In vitro and clinical evidence to identify CAD-CAM
materials that are more effective in the restoration of
endodontically treated teeth is lacking. Therefore, the
purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of
CAD-CAM materials (ceramic, PICN, and composite
resin) on the biomechanical behavior of molar endo-
crowns by using 3D FEA, Weibull analysis, and in vitro
analysis. The null hypotheses were that endocrown-
restored molars using these materials would exhibit
similar stress distribution and failure risk and that no
significant differences would be found in the fracture
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
- Issue -
Figure 1. Schematic illustration of 3D FEA model: endocrown design of
endodontically treated mandibular first molar. FEA, finite element
analysis.
resistance and failure modes of endocrowns composed of
these materials.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The studies compared 5 CAD-CAM materials: Vita Su-
prinity (VS; VITA Zahnfabrik), IPS e.max CAD (EMX;
Ivoclar Vivadent AG), Vita Enamic (VE; VITA Zahnfab-
rik), Lava Ultimate (LU; 3M ESPE), and Grandio blocs
(GR; VOCO). The stress distributions of endocrown-
molar models fabricated with 5 materials were analyzed
by using FEA. Weibull analysis was used to calculate the
failure probability at corresponding stress levels.29-31 The
load-to-fracture performance of molar endocrowns was
evaluated, and failure modes were observed.
A 3D solid model of an intact mandibular molar was
obtained from microcomputed tomography (Quantum
GX; PerkinElmer) and reconstructed by using a CAD
software program (SolidWorks 2014; Dassault Systèmes).
To simulate an endodontically treated molar, the pulp in
the root canal was replaced with gutta percha, and
flowable resin (SDR; Dentsply Sirona) was used to fill the
pulp chamber floor. A flat endocrown cavity was
designed with a 2.0-mm-high reduction from the
occlusal cusp and a 2.0-mm intracoronal extension for
the model (Fig. 1). The model was imported into FE
software (ANSYS, v18.0; Swanson Analysis Inc) and
divided into a mesh composed of 120 750 nodes and
624 771 tetrahedral elements. The 3D model was dupli-
cated and then restored with an endocrown by using 5
CAD-CAM materials, including ceramics (VS and EMX),
PICN (VE), and composite resins (LU and GR). The
mechanical properties of the materials (elastic modulus
and Poisson ratio) were determined from published
Zheng et al
- 2020 3

Table 1. Material properties Approval for this study was provided by the ethics
Elastic Poisson Characteristic Weibull committee of Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical
Material Modulus (MPa) Ratio Strength (MPa) Modulus
University, Guangzhou, PR China. Thirty extracted
Vita Suprinity 104 900.00 0.21 537.03 5.20
IPS e.max CAD 102 700.00 0.22 609.80 13.40
intact human mandibular molars with approximately
Vita Enamic 37 800.00 0.24 195.67 17.62
similar size and morphology were collected and stored
Lava Ultimate 12 700.00 0.45 300.64 10.90 in 0.1% thymol solution (Caelo) at room temperature.
Grandio blocs 18 000.00 0.26 281.60 12.07 All teeth received a standard endodontic treatment
Enamel 84 100.00 0.33 42.41 5.53 in vitro and were prepared with a flat endocrown
Dentin 18 600.00 0.31 44.45 3.35 design as previously reported.39 They were vertically
Spongious bone 1370.00 0.30 d d embedded in acrylic resin (Unifast Trad; GC) up to 2
Cortical bone 10 700.00 0.30 d d mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) in a 12-
Periodontal ligament 68.90 0.45 d d mm-diameter polyvinyl chloride (PVC) tube.
Flowable resin 7000.00 0.25 d d A total of 30 molar-endocrowns fabricated from 5
Gutta percha 0.69 0.45 d d CAD-CAM materials (n=6) were designed and milled by
using a CAD-CAM system (CEREC AC; Dentsply Sirona)
(Fig. 2). The luting surfaces of the teeth and endocrowns
values (Table 1).32-37 All structures were assumed to be
were treated as recommended by the manufacturers.
linear-elastic, isotropic, and homogeneously distributed.
Resin cement (NX3; Kerr Corp) was applied to the luting
As the stress distribution varies with the loading di-
surfaces of endocrowns, which were placed on their
rection, 2 situations were examined: a vertical load of 200
corresponding teeth under a load of 9.8 N for 10 minutes
N applied on the buccal and lingual cusps parallel to the
and exposed to a light polymerizing unit (Elipar; 3M
long axis of the tooth and an oblique load of 200 N at 45
ESPE) at 1000 mW/cm2 for 20 seconds. Excess cement
degrees to the long axis of the tooth, applied to the
was removed, followed by finishing and polishing of the
lingually inclined plane of the buccal cusp.26,32,38 Because
margins.
the FE model was linear, 200 N was applied, and the
After storing at 37  C in distilled water for 1 week,
stresses of other loads (200 to 1500 N in 100-N in-
all specimens were thermocycled for 5000 cycles be-
crements) were calculated in proportion to the data of
tween 5  C and 55  C with a dwell time of 30 seconds
200 N. For all designs, the von Mises stress (VMS) and
in each bath.40-42 All specimens were subjected to a
maximum principal stress (MPS) of dental structures and
compressive test until catastrophic failure in a universal
restorations were evaluated in MPa separately by using
testing machine (Instron 5967; Instron LTD). Force was
the FEA software program.
applied with a 6-mm-diameter stainless-steel ball on
According to the normal stress failure criterion, failure
the central fossa of the occlusal surface of the endo-
was assumed to arise from the greatest principal tensile
crown at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Tinfoil
stress on stress concentration areas. The Weibull risk of
(0.25 mm) was placed between the restoration surface
rupture analysis, also called the survival probability, Ps ,
and the loading ball to prevent stress concentration.27
was obtained as previously reported.32,33,37 When loaded,
The fracture load of the specimens, defined as the
a restoration will survive until the risk of rupture reaches
maximal load before the load reading dropped sud-
a critical value at any one of the multiple failure sources.
denly on the load-strain curve, was recorded. The 1-
For a system of n=i sources, the overall survival proba-
way ANOVA test was used to analyze the fracture
bility, Ps , is the product of the individual survival prob-
resistance of the 5 groups, and the Tukey post hoc
abilities:
multiple-comparison test was applied to identify sta-
Y
Ps = Psi ; tistically homogeneous subsets (a=.05).
i The fracture specimens were collected and examined
under a stereomicroscope (Stereo Discovery.V20; Zeiss)
where i=1, 2, 3. For each of the 5 test models, the stress for fracture types: Type I, fracture in endocrown material;
concentration regions of the enamel, dentin, and resto- Type II, adhesive failure between endocrown material
ration were observed to be at risk. Hence, the failure and dentin; Type III, fracture in enamel or dentin; Type
probability, Pf , for the total systems is IV, fracture extending to root.25 Fractures above the CEJ
Pf = 1 − ðPS1 × PS2 × PS3 Þ were considered repairable, and fractures below the CEJ
and extending to the root were termed nonrepairable.
The probability of failure versus load curves was Representative fracture specimens were further examined
calculated. The characteristic strengths and Weibull by using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (SU-70;
moduli of different materials were adopted from the Hitachi) to determine the fracture origin and direction of
literature and testing data for calculation (Table 1). crack propagation.

Zheng et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

4 Volume - Issue -

Figure 2. Specimens designed and fabricated by using computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing system. A, Digital scan of specimen.
B, Design of endocrown restoration. C, Fabricate of endocrown restoration. D, Endocrown restoration after milling.

RESULTS increased by 33% compared with the lowest value for VS

(33.87 MPa) in restorative materials. Under oblique load,
When ceramic (VS or EMX) was used as the endocrown
the MPS values increased in all models and followed a
material, the VMS was concentrated in the enamel,
trend similar to that of the axial load:
dentin, and endocrown under the axial load (Fig. 3). The
LU>GR>VE>EMX>VS.
VMS in the enamel was concentrated in the distal and
The distributions of failure probabilities of 5 models
lingual sides of the cervical region and accumulated in
are shown in Figure 5. The model with LU showed a
the furcation area and tooth cervix in dentin. The VMS in
higher risk of failure in the enamel (Fig. 5A). A similar
the endocrown was observed in the loading area of
trend was found in the failure risk of dentin in the 5
dental cusps. When loading from the oblique direction,
models (Fig. 5B). Of the restorative materials, VE
although the trend of stress distribution in dentin was
exhibited the greatest failure probability (Fig. 5C). The
similar to that under the axial load, the region where
overall failure probabilities of 5 models were similar at
VMS concentrated in the enamel was in the cervical re-
normal occlusal forces, while LU and VE models
gion inclined to the buccal side (Fig. 4). Stress was
demonstrated the highest failure probabilities under high
observed in the buccal cusps of the endocrowns. When
occlusal loads (Fig. 5D).
using VE, LU, or GR material, the VMS remained
The fracture loads of 5 groups are summarized in
concentrated in these parts but increased in enamel and
Table 3. GR had the highest mean value (3808 ±607 N)
decreased in the pulp chamber during axial and oblique
while VS showed the lowest mean value (1814 ±622 N).
loading.
A statistically significant difference (P<.05) existed be-
The MPS values in the axial load (Table 2) revealed
tween group GR and the other groups. Most failure
that LU (6.73 MPa) had the highest stress value, which
specimens in the GR and VE groups did not involve
was 49% greater than the lowest value in enamel (VS at
dental root and thus were considered as repairable
4.53 MPa). Similar MPS values were observed in dentin
(Figs. 6 and 7). Examples of fractured specimens are
among the 5 models. The stress value of LU (45.10 MPa)

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Zheng et al

- 2020 5

Figure 3. Von Mises stress distribution patterns in endodontically
treated teeth restored by endocrown under axial load of 200 N
according to restorative material type. A, Restoration. B, Enamel.
C, Dentin. D, Overall structures in sagittal plane. EMX, IPS e.max CAD;
GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity.
Figure 4. Von Mises stress distributions patterns in endodontically
treated teeth restored by endocrown under oblique load of 200 N
according to restorative material type. A, Restoration. B, Enamel.
C, Dentin. D, Overall structures in sagittal plane. EMX, IPS e.max CAD;
GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity.

presented in Figure 8. The fractographic analysis revealed Table 2. Maximum principal stress values in enamel, dentin, and
that the fracture originated in the occlusal loading area restoration under axial and oblique loads (MPa)
where the crack propagated downward through the Enamel Dentin Restoration
endocrown, leading to a bulk fracture (Fig. 9). Compared Model Axial Oblique Axial Oblique Axial Oblique

with VS and EMX groups, more compression curls and VS 4.53 7.70 7.23 18.75 33.87 34.38
EMX 4.54 7.73 7.23 18.74 33.97 34.48
arrest lines occurred in the fracture surface of endocrown
VE 4.91 9.30 7.05 18.25 34.41 34.93
in VE, LU, and GR groups.
LU 6.73 16.36 6.70 17.16 45.10 41.22
GR 5.15 10.79 6.86 17.74 34.73 35.25
DISCUSSION
EMX, IPS e.max CAD; GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita
The purpose of this FEA and in vitro study was to Suprinity.

compare the biomechanical behavior of endocrown res-

torations with different CAD-CAM materials. The
different CAD-CAM materials had different stress dis-
tributions, failure probabilities, and in vitro fracture per-
formances; therefore, the null hypotheses were rejected.
FEA has been widely applied in dental biomechanical
studies to examine the stresses generated on oral tissues
and to predict the clinical performance of restorative
materials.34,37 From the results of FEA, the material type
appeared to influence the stress distribution of the molar
endocrowns. In the mathematical analysis, a higher VMS
was observed in the endocrowns fabricated with higher
elastic modulus ceramics (VS or EMX) (102.70 and 104.90
GPa) than in those fabricated with VE and composite

Zheng et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

6 Volume - Issue -

100% 100%
Failure Probability

Failure Probability
80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Load (N) Load (N)
VS EMX VE LU GR VS EMX VE LU GR
A B

100% 100%
Failure Probability

Failure Probability
80% 80%

60% 60%

40% 40%

20% 20%

0% 0%
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Load/N Load (N)
VS EMX VE LU GR VS EMX VE LU GR
C D
Figure 5. Failure probability versus load curves of FEA models under axial load according to Weibull risk of rupture analysis. A, Enamel. B, Dentin.
C, Restorations. D, Overall failure probability. EMX, IPS e.max CAD; GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity.

Table 3. Fracture forces (N), mean ±standard deviations, minimum, and 100%
maximum, of groups after compressive loading
90%
Frequencies of Failure Types (%)

Group Mean ±SD Minimum Maximum *P

VS 1814 ±622 1224 2911 <.001 80%
EMX 2349 ±643 1380 3030 .001 70%
VE 1952 ±378 1583 2377 <.001
60%
LU 2484 ±464 1723 3067 .003
GR 3808 ±607 2684 4210 - 50%
P indicates statistical difference between GR group and other 4 groups. EMX, IPS e.max 40%
CAD; GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity. *Tukey
post hoc multiple-comparison test. 30%
20%
10%
resins. Compared with the VE material, the composite 0%
resins (LU or GR) (12.70 and 18.00 GPa), which have an VS EMX VE LU GR
elastic modulus that is more consistent with that of Group
dentin, were more flexible and dissipated more energy Type IV Type III Type II Type I
under the same load conditions. The endocrown made of
LU and GR exhibited a more homogeneous stress dis- Figure 6. Frequencies of failure types in percentages. Type I, fracture in
tribution, as shown in the sagittal plane (Figs. 3D and endocrown material; Type II, adhesive failure between endocrown
4D), suggesting a higher survival rate.13 This observation material and dentin; Type III, fracture in enamel or dentin; Type IV,
fracture extending to root. EMX, IPS e.max CAD; GR, Grandio blocs;
implied that endocrowns made of composite resins could
LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity.
achieve a more approximate monobloc structure, which
may lead to improved long-term service.24,26

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Zheng et al

- 2020 7

100% The normal occlusal force is 222 to 445 N (average

90%
322.50 N) in the molar region and can be as high as 520
Frequencies of Failure Modes (%)

to 800 N (average 660 N) during clenching.29,30 Accord-

80% ing to the Weibull analysis, 5 materials could provide
70% sufficient fracture resistance under normal occlusal loads,
with a failure probability of 1.93%. The results of the
60%
present study were consistent with those of a previous
50% report that VE material, with lower characteristic strength
40% and higher Weibull modulus, exhibited little stress
accumulation under normal occlusal loads but achieved
30% the highest failure risk under 700-N to 900-N loads.31
20% In the present study, improved load-to-fracture per-
formance was observed in the GR group than in the
10%
other groups. The combination of an elastic modulus
0% similar to that of dentin and high resilience provides GR
VS EMX VE LU GR
with higher flexibility, absorbing more masticatory forces
Group
inside the material before fracture.27,28 Consequently, the
Nonrepairable Repairable GR group exhibited the highest fracture resistance value
Figure 7. Frequencies of repairable (above CEJ) and nonrepairable (root
and less destructive failure modes. The different perfor-
fractures below CEJ) failure modes. CEJ, cementoenamel junction; GR, mances of the GR and LU groups may be explained by
Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic; VS, Vita Suprinity; EMX, their individual compositions and microstructures. LU
IPS e.max CAD. has a matrix supplemented with 80 wt% zirconia and

Figure 8. Example of fracture modes. (A-a) Type I, fracture in endocrown material. (B-b) Type III, fracture in enamel or dentin. (C-c) Type IV, fracture
extending to root. Arrows: Origin indicates initial starting zone of failure. Multiple arrest lines and hackles indicate direction of crack propagation.
Compression curl represents curved lip before total fracture inside material. Twist hackles represents final breakthrough of facture crack. CEJ,
cementoenamel junction.

Zheng et al THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY

8 Volume - Issue -

Figure 9. Scanning electron micrographs of fractographic analysis for each group under different magnifications (×25 to ×45). Fracture features
observed in endocrown included compression curl, arrest line, and hackles. EMX, IPS e.max CAD; GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate; VE, Vita Enamic;
VS, Vita Suprinity.

THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY Zheng et al

- 2020
Figure 10. Scanning electron microscopy images of 2 composite resins.
GR, Grandio blocs; LU, Lava Ultimate. Original magnification (×3000
to ×20 000).
silicate fillers, while GR contains a higher filler content of
86 wt%.17 Moreover, SEM analysis (Fig. 10) suggests
differences in filler size and filler distribution of these 2
materials. CAD-CAM composite resins with more filler
content, especially smaller sized silica nanofiller particles,
have been reported to have higher fracture
resistance.18,19
Lower fracture forces were present in the VE group,
and a possible explanation was the existence of a ceramic
matrix that increased the susceptibility of the material to
fracture under tensile stresses according to the Griffith
behavior theory.14 Additionally, the incidence of repair-
able fracture modes was greater in the VE group, which
may be explained by the polymer phase in the VE that
dissipated the plastic deformation and prevented crack
propagation.15
Compared with the VS and EMX groups, a relatively
rougher fracture morphology was observed in the
endocrown of the VE, LU, and GR groups, which
implied a greater resistance to the applied loads and a
higher ability to limit the propagation of cracks. More
cracks were observed in the remnant dental structure
of the VS and EMX groups, which is consistent with the
FEA results and indicates more stresses concentrated
in the dentin around the pulp chamber when the
elastic moduli of the dentin and material were signif-
icantly different.
Limitations of this study included that the in vitro
testing cannot completely simulate in vivo conditions; for
example, the periodontal ligament was not modeled.
However, a recent study reported no significant differ-
ence between the fracture strengths of endodontically
treated teeth in groups with and without a periodontal
ligament.43 In addition, this study only analyzed the
performance of endocrown molars under a static load.
Future studies, with dynamic loading and fatigue
behavior, are indicated, and clinical trials with long
Zheng et al
9
follow-up periods are needed to support the results of
the present in vitro study.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, the following conclu-
sion was drawn:
1. The endocrown fabricated with GR exhibited the
best monobloc stress distribution and met the me-
chanical requirements for large occlusal areas.
REFERENCES
1. Schestatsky R, Dartora G, Felberg R, Spazzin AO, Sarkis-Onofre R, Bacchi A,
et al. Do endodontic retreatment techniques influence the fracture strength of
endodontically treated teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Mech
Behav Biomed Mater 2019;90:306-12.
2. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically
treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301.
3. Zhu Z, Dong XY, He S, Pan X, Tang L. Effect of post placement on the
restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review. Int J Pros-
thodont 2015;28:475-83.
4. Naumann M, Schmitter M, Krastl G. Postendodontic restoration: endodontic
post-and-core or no post at all? J Adhes Dent 2018;20:19-24.
5. Govare N, Contrepois M. Endocrowns: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent
2019. [Epub ahead of print].
6. El-Damanhoury HM, Haj-Ali RN, Platt JA. Fracture resistance and micro-
leakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks. Oper Dent 2015;40:
201-10.
7. Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns
and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent 2012;37:
130-6.
8. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the
restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the liter-
ature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies).
Quintessence Int 2008;39:117-29.
9. Sedrez-Porto JA, Rosa WL, da Silva AF, Munchow EA, Pereira-Cenci T.
Endocrown restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent
2016;52:8-14.
10. Spitznagel FA, Boldt J, Gierthmuehlen PC. CAD/CAM ceramic restorative
materials for natural teeth. J Dent Res 2018;97:1082-91.
11. Zhi L, Bortolotto T, Krejci I. Comparative in vitro wear resistance of CAD/
CAM composite resin and ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:
199-202.
12. Lawson NC, Bansal R, Burgess JO. Wear, strength, modulus and hardness of
CAD/CAM restorative materials. Dent Mater 2016;32:e275-83.
13. Krejci I, Daher R. Stress distribution difference between Lava Ultimate full
crowns and IPS e.max CAD full crowns on a natural tooth and on tooth-
shaped implant abutments. Odontology 2017;105:254-6.
14. Griffith AA. The phenomena of rupture and flow in solids. Phil. Trans. Roy.
Soc. London 1921;221:163-98.
15. Taha D, Spintzyk S, Schille C, Sabet A, Wahsh M, Salah T, et al. Fracture
resistance and failure modes of polymer infiltrated ceramic endocrown res-
torations with variations in margin design and occlusal thickness.
J Prosthodont Res 2018;62:293-7.
16. Mainjot AK, Dupont NM, Oudkerk JC, Dewael TY, Sadoun MJ. From arti-
sanal to CAD-CAM blocks: state of the art of indirect composites. J Dent Res
2016;95:487-95.
17. Alamoush RA, Silikas N, Salim NA, Al-Nasrawi S, Satterthwaite JD. Effect of
the composition of CAD/CAM composite blocks on mechanical properties.
Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:4893143.
18. Yamaguchi S, Kani R, Kawakami K, Tsuji M, Inoue S, Lee C, et al. Fatigue
behavior and crack initiation of CAD/CAM resin composite molar crowns.
Dent Mater 2018;34:1578-84.
19. Yamaguchi S, Inoue S, Sakai T, Abe T, Kitagawa H, Imazato S. Multi-scale
analysis of the effect of nano-filler particle diameter on the physical prop-
erties of CAD/CAM composite resin blocks. Comput Methods Biomech
Biomed Engin 2017;20:714-9.
20. Porto TS, Roperto RC, Teich ST, Faddoul FF, Rizzante FAP, Porto-Neto ST,
et al. Brittleness index and its relationship with materials mechanical prop-
erties: influence on the machinability of CAD/CAM materials. Braz Oral Res
2019;33:e026.
21. Chavali R, Nejat AH, Lawson NC. Machinability of CAD-CAM materials.
J Prosthet Dent 2017;118:194-9.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
10
22. Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, Loushine BA, Weller RN, Loushine RJ, et al.
Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal
fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. J Endod 2011;37:895-902.
23. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ. Influence of restorative
technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary
premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent
2008;99:30-7.
24. Pedrollo Lise D, Van Ende A, De Munck J, Umeda Suzuki TY, Cardoso
Vieira LC, Van Meerbeek B. Biomechanical behavior of endodontically
treated premolars using different preparation designs and CAD/CAM ma-
terials. J Dent 2017;59:54-61.
25. Gresnigt MM, Ozcan M, van den Houten ML, Schipper L, Cune MS. Fracture
strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and
multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces. Dent
Mater 2016;32:607-14.
26. Zhu J, Rong Q, Wang X, Gao X. Influence of remaining tooth structure and
restorative material type on stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary
premolars: A finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:646-55.
27. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Hahnel S. Influence of preparation, fitting, and
cementation on the vitro performance and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM
crowns. J Dent 2017;65:70-5.
28. Awada A, Nathanson D. Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM
restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:587-93.
29. Hidaka O, Iwasaki M, Saito M, Morimoto T. Influence of clenching intensity
on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average bite pressure. J Dent
Res 1999;78:1336-44.
30. de Abreu RA, Pereira MD, Furtado F, Prado GP, Mestriner W Jr, Ferreira LM.
Masticatory efficiency and bite force in individuals with normal occlusion.
Arch Oral Biol 2014;59:1065-74.
31. Gonzaga CC, Cesar PF, Miranda WG Jr, Yoshimura HN. Slow crack growth
and reliability of dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2011;27:394-406.
32. Lin CL, Chang YH, Pa CA. Estimation of the risk of failure for an
endodontically treated maxillary premolar with MODP preparation and
CAD/CAM ceramic restorations. J Endod 2009;35:1391-5.
33. Lin CL, Chang YH, Hsieh SK, Chang WJ. Estimation of the failure risk of a
maxillary premolar with different crack depths with endodontic treatment by
computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing ceramic restorations.
J Endod 2013;39:375-9.
34. Lin CL, Chang YH, Chang CY, Pai CA, Huang SF. Finite element and
Weibull analyses to estimate failure risks in the ceramic endocrown and
classical crown for endodontically treated maxillary premolar. Eur J Oral Sci
2010;118:87-93.
35. Wendler M, Belli R, Petschelt A, Mevec D, Harrer W, Lube T, et al. Chairside
CAD/CAM materials. Part 2: flexural strength testing. Dent Mater 2017;33:
99-109.
THE JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
Volume - Issue -
36. Omran TA, Garoushi S, Lassila L, Shinya A, Vallittu PK. Bonding interface
affects the load-bearing capacity of bilayered composites. Dent Mater J
2019;38:1002-11.
37. Gulec L, Ulusoy N. Effect of endocrown restorations with different CAD/
CAM materials: 3D finite element and Weibull analyses. Biomed Res Int
2017;2017:5638683.
38. Zhang Y, Chai H, Lee JJ, Lawn BR. Chipping resistance of graded zirconia
ceramics for dental crowns. J Dent Res 2012;91:311-5.
39. Sun J, Ruan W, He J, Lin X, Ci B, Yin S, et al. Clinical efficacy of different
marginal forms of endocrowns: study protocol for a randomized controlled
trial. Trials 2019;20:454.
40. Aktas G, Yerlikaya H, Akca K. Mechanical failure of endocrowns manufac-
tured with different ceramic materials: An in vitro biomechanical study.
J Prosthodont 2018;27:340-6.
41. Skouridou N, Pollington S, Rosentritt M, Tsitrou E. Fracture strength of
minimally prepared all-ceramic CEREC crowns after simulating 5 years of
service. Dent Mater 2013;29:e70-7.
42. Bankoglu Gungor M, Karakoca Nemli S. Fracture resistance of CAD-CAM
monolithic ceramic and veneered zirconia molar crowns after aging in a
mastication simulator. J Prosthet Dent 2018;119:473-80.
43. Gonzalez-Lluch C, Rodriguez-Cervantes PJ, Forner L, Barjau A. Inclu-
sion of the periodontal ligament in studies on the biomechanical
behavior of fiber post-retained restorations: An in vitro study and three-
dimensional finite element analysis. Proc Inst Mech Eng H 2016;230:
230-8.
Corresponding author:
Dr Wenjuan Yan
Department of Stomatology
Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University
1838 N Guangzhou RD
Guangdong
PR CHINA
Email: 645613053@qq.com
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Ziting Zheng: Conceptualization, Methodology, Investigation, Writing - original
draft, Writing - review & editing. Yunyan He: Methodology, Investigation.
Wenhao Ruan: Software, Validation, Data curation. Zhiting Ling: Software,
Validation. Chunqing Zheng: Investigation, Formal analysis. Yawen Gai:
Investigation. Wenjuan Yan: Conceptualization, Supervision, Writing - review &
editing.
Copyright © 2020 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.009
Zheng et al