- Email: [email protected]
Endocrowns
differences in preparation data, it is best not to overlap the incisal edge. Future studies should use more standardized preparation designs to determine the implications of incisal coverage.
Albanesi RB, Pignozzo MN, Sesma N, et al: Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:1-7, 2016 Reprints available from S Morimoto, School of Dentistry, Ibirapuera Univ, S~ao Paulo, Brazil, Interlagos Ave, 1329 S~ao Paulo, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
Endocrowns Background.—Endodontically treated teeth that have lost a great deal of coronal structure present a clinical challenge for reconstruction. One option that has been suggested is endocrown restoration. Endocrowns are monoblock restorations that assemble the intraradicular post, core, and crown into one component. They are anchored to the internal part of the pulp chamber and on cavity margins, obtaining both macro- and micromechanical retention. They require the removal of lesser amounts of sound tissue compared to conventional techniques and shorten chair time. Their structure and retention mean that the masticatory stresses applied to the tooth/restoration interface are better dissipated along the entire restored tooth structure. Either ceramic or resin composites can be used to fabricate endocrowns, with ceramics more rigid than dental structure and resin composites more biomechanically similar to natural tooth. Little research has addressed the use of endocrowns versus conventional treatments using intraradicular posts and the literature that is available reports on short follow-up times. A systematic review of the literature was done to assess the clinical and in vitro studies that address this comparison.
included in the assessment. Failure due to secondary caries occurred in two cases. The analysis of endocrowns’ fracture strength in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated significant differences from conventional methods involving intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, and inlay/onlay restorations. Endocrowns performed considerably better than conventional approaches. In posterior teeth, the endocrowns and conventional treatments had similar fracture strength. The fracture strength of endocrowns compared to intraradicular posts did not differ significantly. Discussion.—The performance of endocrowns in both posterior and anterior teeth appears to be similar to or better than that of conventional treatments. However, the results of in vitro studies must be viewed with caution when applying them to clinical situations, and this assessment included a majority of in vitro findings.
Clinical Significance.—Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, but it appears that endocrowns may be a viable alternative for patients who have severely compromised endodontically treated teeth that require restorations.
Methods.—The search covered seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, and IBECS. Eight studies were identified, 3 of which were clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies. The number of teeth included ranged from 20 to 48, with a total of 102. Although just 1 study investigated resin composite endocrowns, all of them studied ceramic endocrowns. Variables that were quantified included fracture strength, failure modes, marginal continuity, Weibull analysis, and finite element method. The 5 in vitro studies were also subjected to a meta-analysis in addition to the review.
Sedrez-Prto JA, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, et al: Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:8-14, 2016
Results.—The success rates for endocrowns varied from 94% to 100%. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 36 months. Fifty-five posterior teeth were
Reprints available from T Pereira-Cenci, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal Univ of Pelotas, R Gonc¸alves Chaves, 457 Rm 508, Pelotas, 96015-560 RS, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
138
Dental Abstracts
Albanesi RB, Pignozzo MN, Sesma N, et al: Incisal coverage or not in ceramic laminate veneers: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:1-7, 2016 Reprints available from S Morimoto, School of Dentistry, Ibirapuera Univ, S~ao Paulo, Brazil, Interlagos Ave, 1329 S~ao Paulo, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
Endocrowns Background.—Endodontically treated teeth that have lost a great deal of coronal structure present a clinical challenge for reconstruction. One option that has been suggested is endocrown restoration. Endocrowns are monoblock restorations that assemble the intraradicular post, core, and crown into one component. They are anchored to the internal part of the pulp chamber and on cavity margins, obtaining both macro- and micromechanical retention. They require the removal of lesser amounts of sound tissue compared to conventional techniques and shorten chair time. Their structure and retention mean that the masticatory stresses applied to the tooth/restoration interface are better dissipated along the entire restored tooth structure. Either ceramic or resin composites can be used to fabricate endocrowns, with ceramics more rigid than dental structure and resin composites more biomechanically similar to natural tooth. Little research has addressed the use of endocrowns versus conventional treatments using intraradicular posts and the literature that is available reports on short follow-up times. A systematic review of the literature was done to assess the clinical and in vitro studies that address this comparison.
included in the assessment. Failure due to secondary caries occurred in two cases. The analysis of endocrowns’ fracture strength in posterior and anterior teeth demonstrated significant differences from conventional methods involving intraradicular posts, direct composite resin, and inlay/onlay restorations. Endocrowns performed considerably better than conventional approaches. In posterior teeth, the endocrowns and conventional treatments had similar fracture strength. The fracture strength of endocrowns compared to intraradicular posts did not differ significantly. Discussion.—The performance of endocrowns in both posterior and anterior teeth appears to be similar to or better than that of conventional treatments. However, the results of in vitro studies must be viewed with caution when applying them to clinical situations, and this assessment included a majority of in vitro findings.
Clinical Significance.—Further studies are needed to confirm these findings, but it appears that endocrowns may be a viable alternative for patients who have severely compromised endodontically treated teeth that require restorations.
Methods.—The search covered seven databases: PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, BBO, SciELO, LILACS, and IBECS. Eight studies were identified, 3 of which were clinical trials and 5 in vitro studies. The number of teeth included ranged from 20 to 48, with a total of 102. Although just 1 study investigated resin composite endocrowns, all of them studied ceramic endocrowns. Variables that were quantified included fracture strength, failure modes, marginal continuity, Weibull analysis, and finite element method. The 5 in vitro studies were also subjected to a meta-analysis in addition to the review.
Sedrez-Prto JA, de Oliveira da Rosa WL, da Silva AF, et al: Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 52:8-14, 2016
Results.—The success rates for endocrowns varied from 94% to 100%. The follow-up periods ranged from 6 months to 36 months. Fifty-five posterior teeth were
Reprints available from T Pereira-Cenci, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Federal Univ of Pelotas, R Gonc¸alves Chaves, 457 Rm 508, Pelotas, 96015-560 RS, Brazil; e-mail: [email protected]
138
Dental Abstracts