Fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated premolars reconstructed by different preparation approaches: Cervical margin relocation and crown lengthening with complete and partial ferrule with three different post and core systems.

Autor: Falahchai M; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran., Musapoor N; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran., Mokhtari S; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran., Babaee Hemmati Y; Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran., Neshandar Asli H; Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Jazyk: angličtina
Zdroj: Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists [J Prosthodont] 2024 Oct; Vol. 33 (8), pp. 774-782. Date of Electronic Publication: 2023 Aug 09.
DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13741
Abstrakt: Purpose: To assess the fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated premolars reconstructed by different preparation approaches: cervical margin relocation (CMR) and crown lengthening (CL) with complete ferrule (CLF) and partial ferrule (CLPF) with three different post and core systems.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 100 maxillary premolars were assigned to the following 10 groups according to their preparation approach and type of post and core system (n = 10): (I) control (intact teeth), (II) prefabricated fiber post (PFP) and composite core with CMR (PFP-CMR), (III) polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite (PEFRC) with CMR (PEFRC-CMR), (IV) casting post (CP) and core with CMR (CP-CMR), (V) PFP-CLPF, (VI) PEFRC-CLPF, (VII) CP-CLPF, (VIII) PFP-CLF, (IX) PEFRC-CLF, and (X) CP-CLF. After thermomechanical loading, the fracture resistance and failure mode were assessed. Data were analyzed statistically (α = 0.05).
Results: In all post and core systems, the CLPF approach had lower fracture resistance than CMR (p < 0.05); CLF showed higher fracture resistance than CLPF only in the PFP system (p = 0.038). In PEFRC and CP systems, the difference between CLF and CLPF was not significant (p > 0.05). No significant difference was found in fracture resistance of different post and core systems with the same preparation approach (p > 0.05). CLPF showed the highest frequency of favorable, and CLF showed the highest frequency of unfavorable fractures.
Conclusion: CLPF yielded lower fracture resistance than CMR. The difference in fracture resistance was not significant between CLF and CMR but the frequency of unfavorable fractures was higher in CLF than in other groups.
(© 2023 by the American College of Prosthodontists.)
Databáze: MEDLINE
Externí odkaz: