Authors: G Sterzenbach 1• M Rosentritt 2• R Frankenberger3 • S Paris 4• M Naumann*
1-Guido Sterzenbach, DDS, DrMedDent, Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry, and Craniomandibular Disorders, Charité–Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
2-Martin Rosentritt, Dipl-Ing (FH), PhD, associate professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Regensburg University Medical Center, Regensburg, Germany
3-Roland Frankenberger, DDS, DrMedDent, professor, Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontology, University of Marburg, Marburg, Germany
4-Sebastian Paris, DDS, DrMedDent, Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, School for Dental Medicine, Christian Albrechts-Universität zu Kiel, Kiel, Germany
*Michael Naumann, DDS, DrMedDent, professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
Dentists should read scientific papers carefully when searching for evidence for a specific treatment approach regarding postendodontic restoration, since inappropriate methodology may result in misleading clinical recommendations.
The load capability of post-restored endodontically treated teeth (ETT) can be determined at different restorative stages. It was the aim of this study to compare the load capability of ETT at these stages.
Materials and Methods:
Maxillary central incisors were divided into 4 groups (n=10) and endodontically treated. Specimens were restored with: (I) only glass fiber posts (GFP); (II) GFP and composite build-up with 2 mm ferrule; (III and IV) with additional adhesively luted all-ceramic crowns. Group (I) to (III) were statically loaded, and group (IV) was exposed to thermomechanical loading (TML) and subsequent static loading.
The lowest median load level of 73 N was determined for group (I). The maximum median load value of 331 N was found for group (III). The comparison of Fmax [N] of group (I), (II) and (III) revealed significant differences between the groups (p<0.001). The specimens of group (IV) failed at significantly lower load values (p<0.005) as similarly restored specimens of group (III) which were only statically loaded. The stage of restoration and TML loading prior to static loading had a significant impact on fracture patterns (p=0.006).
Every additional restorative step torwards a final crown-restored ETT significantly increased the load capability. TML prior to load-to-fracture testing of the complete restorative complex, ie. post, core and crown, significantly decreased maximum load capability.
Source: Operative Dentistry