Impact of Dental Materials on Stress Concentration and Distribution in Inlay Restorations and the Tooth: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis
Chau TB Vu, Tri M Doan
Keywords :
All-ceramic, Direct composite resin, Finite element analysis, Indirect composite resin, Inlay restoration
Citation Information :
Vu CT, Doan TM. Impact of Dental Materials on Stress Concentration and Distribution in Inlay Restorations and the Tooth: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (4):197-201.
Purpose: To evaluate the impact of dental materials on stress concentration and distribution in inlay restorations and the tooth.
Materials and methods: A maxillary premolar model was developed to investigate the stress concentration and distribution within the inlay restorations and the tooth. The three-dimensional inlay cavity designs featured dimensions of 2.7 mm in depth, 2.3 mm in isthmus width, and 1.2 mm in gingival wall width. Three types of restoration materials were examined: conventional composite for direct inlay restorations, and full ceramic and indirect composite for indirect inlay restorations. A load of 250 N was applied to the tooth, and stress levels were quantified using von Mises stress values.
Results: The highest stress concentration occurred in the direct composite restoration (371 MPa). The stress levels for the indirect composite and ceramic were 367 and 368 MPa, respectively. Within the tooth structure, stress levels measured 148 MPa for direct composite and 108 MPa for indirect composite. The ceramic restoration distributed the lowest stress values at 41.7 MPa. At the resin cement layer, stress concentrations were 19.5 MPa for direct composite, 16.4 MPa for indirect composite, and 7.17 MPa for ceramic restoration.
Conclusion: The choice of restoration material influenced the stress levels in both the restoration and the tooth. Ceramics emerged as a more appropriate material for inlay restorations, while indirect composite also offered a viable alternative for inlays.
Christensen GJ. The advantages of minimally invasive dentistry. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(11):1563–1565. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0088
Angeletaki F, Gkogkos A, Papazoglou E, et al. Direct versus indirect inlay/onlay composite restorations in posterior teeth. A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent 2016;53:12–21. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.07.011
Hekland H, Riise T, Berg E. Remakes of Colorlogic IPS Empress ceramic restorations in general practiceand. Int J Prosthodont 2003;16(6):621–625. PMID: 14714841.
Beier US, Kapferer I, Dumfahrt H. Clinical long-term evaluation and failure characteristics of 1,335 all-ceramic restorations. Int J Prosthodont 2012;25(1):70–78. PMID: 22259801.
Bakitian F. Effect of placement strategies and connector designs in CAD/CAM technology on fracture resistance of multilayered monolithic zirconia fixed dental prostheses: an in vitro study. Dent Mater J 2024;43(5):693–700. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2024-018
Saeed F, Muhammad N, Khan AS, et al. Prosthodontics dental materials: from conventional to unconventional. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2020;106:110167. DOI: 10.1016/j.msec.2019.110167
Oh SE, Park JM, Kim JH, et al. Mechanical properties and crown accuracy of additively manufactured zirconia restorations. Dent Mater 2024;40(10):1546–1556. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.07.016
Justen M, Scheck D, Munchow EA, et al. Is Cention-N comparable to other direct dental restorative materials? A systematic review with network meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Dent Mater 2024;40(9):1341–1352. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.06.014
Chen J, Cai H, Suo L, et al. A systematic review of the survival and complication rates of inlay-retained fixed dental prostheses. J Dent 2017;59:2–10. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.02.006
Akhlaghi O, Camposilvan E, Garnier V, et al. Conventional sintering of nano-crystalline Yttria-stabilized zirconia enables high-strength, highly translucent and opalescent dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2024;40(7):1031–1040. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.05.007
Zattera ACA, Morganti FA, de Souza Balbinot G, et al. The influence of filler load in 3D printing resin-based composites. Dent Mater 2024;40(7):1041–1046. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2024.05.016
Holand W, Schweiger M, Watzke R, et al. Ceramics as biomaterials for dental restoration. Expert Rev Med Devices 2008;5(6):729–745. DOI: 10.1586/17434440.5.6.729
Terry DA, Leinfelder KF, Maragos C. Developing form, function, and natural aesthetics with laboratory-processed composite resin—part I. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2005;17(5):313–318. PMID: 16121747.
Magne P, Belser UC. Porcelain versus composite inlays/onlays: effects of mechanical loads on stress distribution, adhesion, and crown flexure. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2003;23(6):543–555. PMID: 14703758.
Yamanel K, Caglar A, Gulsahi K, et al. Effects of different ceramic and composite materials on stress distribution in inlay and onlay cavities: 3-D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J 2009;28(6):661–670. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.28.661
Mormann WH, Stawarczyk B, Ender A, et al. Wear characteristics of current aesthetic dental restorative CAD/CAM materials: two-body wear, gloss retention, roughness and Martens hardness. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;20:113–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.01.003
Darmani H, Al-Hiyasat AS, Milhem MM. Cytotoxicity of dental composites and their leached components. Quintessence Int 2007;38(9):789–795. PMID: 17873986.
Ozkir SE. Effect of restoration material on stress distribution on partial crowns: a 3D finite element analysis. J Dent Sci 2018;13(4):311–317. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2017.03.010
Dejak B, Mlotkowski A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(2):131–140. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60029-3
Caglar A, Aydin C, Ozen J, et al. Effects of mesiodistal inclination of implants on stress distribution in implant-supported fixed prostheses. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21(1):36–44. PMID: 16519180.
Chander NG, Padmanabhan TV. Finite element stress analysis of diastema closure with ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthodont 2009;18(7):577–581. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00490.x
Rupawat D, Nallaswamy D, Somasundaram J, et al. An in vitro chewing simulation study comparing the wear resistance behavior of polyetheretherketone-layered composite crown and ceramic-layered zirconia crown. Cureus 2023;15(10):e46439. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.46439
Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, et al. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(1):18–22. DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.x
Yang H, Park C, Shin JH, et al. Stress distribution in premolars restored with inlays or onlays: 3D finite element analysis. J Adv Prosthodont 2018;10(3):184–190. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2018.10.3.184
de Kuijper MCFM, Cune MS, Ozcan M, et al. Clinical performance of direct composite resin versus indirect restorations on endodontically treated posterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2023;130(3):295–306. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.11.009
Soares PV, Santos-Filho PCF, Gomide HA, et al. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(2):114–122. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60027-X
Batu Eken Z, Ilie N. A critical review on the factors affecting the bond strength of direct restorative material alternatives to amalgam. Materials (Basel) 2024;17(19):4853. DOI: 10.3390/ma17194853