International Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  14 (2024)
Volume  13 (2023)
Volume  12 (2022)
Volume  11 (2021)
Volume  10 (2020)
Volume  9 (2019)
Volume  8 (2018)
Volume  7 (2017)
Volume  6 (2016)
Volume  5 (2015)
Volume  4 (2014)
Volume  3 (2013)
Volume  2 (2012)
Volume  1 (2011)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 4 ( October-December, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Marginal Adaptation of PEEK and Cast Metal Crowns for Restoring Posterior Teeth with Endocrown and Richmond Crown: An In Vitro Study

Charnpreet Singh, Shefali Singla, Sunint Singh, Lalit Kumar, Komalpreet Kaur

Keywords : Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing, Crowns, Marginal Adaptation, Polyether ether ketone, Richmond crown

Citation Information : Singh C, Singla S, Singh S, Kumar L, Kaur K. Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness and Marginal Adaptation of PEEK and Cast Metal Crowns for Restoring Posterior Teeth with Endocrown and Richmond Crown: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (4):234-241.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10019-1479

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 30-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the fracture toughness and marginal adaptation of polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and cast metal crowns for restoring posterior teeth using the endocrown and Richmond crown techniques. Materials and methods: Forty-two extracted permanent first molars were divided into three groups (n = 14 each): group E (endocrown), group R (Richmond crown), and the control group. Groups E and R were subdivided based on materials (PEEK and cast metal) used into PEEK endocrown (EP), cast metal endocrown (ECM), PEEK Richmond crown (RP), and cast metal Richmond crown (RCM). Standardized endocrown and Richmond crown preparations were done, and samples were randomly divided into subgroups. Restorations were fabricated, and marginal gap evaluation was conducted using two-dimensional (2D) cross-sectional analysis. After cementation, specimens were subjected to compressive stress until failure using a universal testing machine. Failure loads and modes were recorded. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (p < 0.05). Results: One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences in fracture toughness, with the RCM subgroup showing the highest mean fracture toughness (3530.06 N) compared to RP (2879.89 N), EP (2249.56 N), and ECM (2919.69 N). The EP subgroup exhibited favorable fractures in 71% of samples. No significant variations in mean marginal gap were observed among groups, with all mean values within clinical acceptability. Conclusion: PEEK and cast metal crowns achieved satisfactory marginal adaptation within clinically acceptable limits, ensuring effective sealing against microleakage. Richmond crowns demonstrated superior fracture toughness but were prone to catastrophic failures. Conversely, the endocrown technique exhibited high fracture toughness with a safer, more predictable failure mode. PEEK-based restorations, particularly EPs, showed promising results in terms of fracture toughness, marginal adaptation, and favorable failure patterns.

PDF Share
  1. Caussin E, Izart M, Ceinos R, et al. Advanced material strategy for restoring damaged endodontically treated teeth: a comprehensive review. Materials 2024;17:3736. DOI: 10.3390/ma17153736
  2. Kimble P, Stuhr S, McDonald N, et al. Decision making in the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: effect of biomimetic dentistry training. Dent J 2023;11:159. DOI: 10.3390/dj11070159
  3. Mario D, Mario A, Allegra C, et al. The influence of indirect bonded restorations on clinical prognosis of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Mater 2022;38(8):e203–e219. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2022.06.018
  4. Zoidis P, Papathanasiou I, Polyzois G. The use of a modified poly-ether-ether-ketone (PEEK) as an alternative framework material for removable dental prostheses. A clinical report. J Prosthodont 2016;25(7):580–584. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12325
  5. Sultan S, Al Garni H, Al Onazi M, et al. Minimally invasive posterior full crown competitors: onlays, occlusal veneers, vonlays and endocrowns: a review and proposed classification. J Int Dent Med Res 2021;14(4):1617–1622.
  6. Gujjar KR, Sumra N. Minimally invasive dentistry—a review. Int J Clin Prev Dent 2013;9(2):109–120.
  7. Zhu Z, Dong XY, He S, et al. Effect of post placement on the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review. Int J Prosthodont 2015;28(5):475–483. DOI: 10.11607/ijp.4120
  8. Soares CJ, Valdivia AD, da Silva GR, et al. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of post systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 2012;23(2):135–740. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402012000200008
  9. El Ghoul W, Özcan M, Tribst JPM, et al. Fracture resistance, failure mode and stress concentration in a modified endocrown design. Biomater Investig Dent 2020;7(1):110–119. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2020.1801348
  10. Richmond CM. Crown-and bridge-work. Int Dent J 1892;13(8):571–578.
  11. Dod A, Kumar A, Pandita A, et al. Managing fractured central incisor with RICHMOND CROWN—a case report. J Appl Dent Med Sci 2016;2:57–61.
  12. Kumar L, Mattoo K. Designing a richmond crown possessing two different axial (root/core) inclinations. J Adv Med Dent Sci Res 2020;8(6):85–88. DOI: 10.21276/jamdsr
  13. Mishra P, Mantri SS, Deogade S, et al. Richmond crown: a lost state of art. Int J Dent Health Sci 2015;2(2):448–453.
  14. Tzimas K, Tsiafitsa M, Gerasimou P, et al. Endocrown restorations for extensively damaged posterior teeth: clinical performance of three cases. Restor Dent Endod 2018;43:e38. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2018.43.e38
  15. Zheng Z, He Y, Ruan W, et al. Biomechanical behavior of endocrown restorations with different CAD-CAM materials: a 3D finite element and in vitro analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(6):890–899. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.03.009
  16. Dartora NR, Moris ICM, Poole SF, et al. Mechanical behavior of endocrowns fabricated with different CAD-CAM ceramic systems. J Prosthet Dent 2021;125(1):117–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2019.11.008
  17. Doshi K, Sharma S. Clinical practice guidelines for choice of post-endodontic restorations. Int J Dent Oral Sci 2021;8(6):2875–2879. DOI: 10.19070/2377-8075-21000560
  18. Rekow ED, Silva NRFA, Coelho PG, et al. Performance of dental ceramics: challenges for improvements. J Dent Res 2011;90(8):937–952. DOI: 10.1177/0022034510391795
  19. Ma Z, Zhao X, Zhao J, et al. Biologically modified polyether ether ketone as dental implant material. Front Bioeng Biotechnol 2020;8:620537. DOI: 10.3389/fbioe.2020.620537
  20. Godil AZ, Kazi AI, Wadwan SA. Comparative evaluation of marginal and internal fit of endocrowns using lithium disilicate and polyetheretherketone computer-aided design-computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) materials: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(2):190–194. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_547_20
  21. Goldin EB, Boyd NW 3rd, Goldstein GR, et al. Marginal fit of leucite-glass pressable ceramic restorations and ceramic-pressed-to-metal restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(2):143–147. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.10.023
  22. Nakamura T, Dei N, Kojima T, et al. Marginal and internal fit of CEREC 3 CAD/CAM all-ceramic crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16:244–248. PMID: 12854786.
  23. Roy MS, Tewary S, Sanyal P, et al. An in vivo study to compare the marginal fit accuracy of crowns prepared using two different materials. J Evol Med Dent Sci 2019;8(24):1930–1394. DOI: 10.14260/jemds/2019/424
  24. Dghaily D, Rayyan M, Ragab H, et al. Comparison of fracture resistance between different treatment modalities of mutilated endodontically treated teeth using polyether ether ketone. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(9):668–673. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3558
  25. AlShehi MO, Fattouh M. Marginal accuracy and fracture resistance of CAD/CAM versus MAD/MAM endocrowns. Cairo Dent J 2013;29(2):1–7.
  26. Al-Zubaidi Z, Al-Shamma AMW. The effect of different finishing lines on the marginal fitness of full contour zirconia and glass ceramic CAD/CAM crowns (an in-vitro study). J Dent Mater Tech 2015;4(3):127–136. DOI: 10.22038/jdmt.2015.4595
  27. Ghajghouj O, Taşar-Faruk S. Evaluation of fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns with different intracoronal depths and restorative materials luted with various resin cements. Materials 2019;12(16):2528. DOI: 10.3390/ma12162528
  28. Osman AM, El Mahallawi OS, Khair-Allah LS, et al. Marginal integrity and clinical evaluation of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) versus lithium disilicate (E-Max) endocrowns: randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Health Sci 2022;6(S4):1831–1845. DOI: 10.53730/ijhs.v6nS4.6322
  29. Badran A, Zaki A, Rabie K. One year clinical evaluation of milled BioHPP polyetheretherketone (PEEK)-based versus metal ceramic single crowns (randomized controlled clinical trial). Braz Dent Sci 2021;24(3). DOI: 10.14295/bds.2021.v24i3.2518
  30. Holst S, Tawdrous RE, Karl M. Description of a novel technique for three-dimensional fit assessment of dental restorations. In: 6th World Congress of Biomechanics (WCB 2010). 2010;31:1479–1482.
  31. Holst S, Karl M, Wichmann M, et al. A new triple-scan protocol for 3D fit assessment of dental restorations. Quintessence Int 2011;42:651–657. PMID: 21842005.
  32. Elalem IA, Ibraheem RM, Hamdy AM. Clinical evaluation of the marginal integrity, and internal fit of E-Max endocrown restorations with different marginal preparation designs. Ex-vivo study. J Dent Oral Health 2019;5:128.
  33. Einhorn M, DuVall N, Wajdowicz M, et al. Preparation ferrule design effect on endocrown failure resistance. J Prosthodont 2019;28(1):e237–e242. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12671
  34. Anadioti E, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, et al. 3D and 2D marginal fit of pressed and CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns made from digital and conventional impressions. J Prosthodont 2014;23(8):610–617. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12180
  35. Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Bite force and state of definition. Acta Odontol Scand 1977;35(6):297–303. DOI: 10.3109/00016357709064128
  36. Aparna J, Maiti S, Jessy P. Polyether ether ketone—as an alternative biomaterial for metal richmond crown-3-dimensional finite element analysis. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(6):553. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_638_20
  37. Teixeira KN, Duque TM, Maia HP, et al. Fracture resistance and failure mode of custom-made post-and-cores of polyetheretherketone and nano-ceramic composite. Oper Dent 2020;45(5):506–515. DOI: 10.2341/19-080-L
  38. Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent 2012;37(2):130–136. DOI: 10.2341/11-105-L
  39. Magne P, Carvalho AO, Bruzi G, et al. Influence of no-ferrule and no-post buildup design on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM crowns. Oper Dent 2014;39(6):595–602. DOI: 10.2341/13-004-L
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.