Which materials would account for a better mechanical behavior for direct endocrown restorations?

Abstract

PurposeTo investigate the mechanical performance and fracture behavior of endocrown restorations prepared using different composite materials and following a direct technique. Methods: Sound molars were cut at 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction, endodontically treated, and allocated according to the type of restoration (n = 7): without post (endocrowns) or with post (post-retained restorations). Endocrowns were fabricated with conventional composite (Filtek Z350); bulk fill composite (Filtek Bulk Fill); conventional composite modeled using resin adhesives (SBMP: Scotchbond Multipurpose Adhesive; or SBU: Scotchbond Universal Adhesive); and lithium disilicate ceramic (E.max; Positive control). The post-retained restorations were fabricated with glass-fiber post combined with conventional or bulk fill composites. All restorations were bonded following an etch-and-rise adhesive approach or self-adhesive resin cement. The teeth were submitted to fatigue (Byocycle) and compression (EMIC DL500) testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey (p < 0.05) and Weibull analysis was carried out in order to evaluate the reliability of restorations. Results: The bulk-fill-based endocrown showed a stronger performance than the control. The presence of SBMP or the use of bulk-fill composite resulted in the occurrence of less aggressive fractures than the other restorative systems. Endocrowns bonded directly to the tooth seemed to produce similar fracture strength properties as compared to endocrowns bonded using self-adhesive resin cementation. The bulk-fill-based endocrown showed the greatest reliability of study. Conclusion: Resin-based restorative materials seem to be interesting alternative options to fabricate large dental restorations in lieu of the more traditionally used glass ceramics or root canal post systems.