Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare, through a systematic review of the literature, the biomechanical performance of endocrowns and traditional core-crowns (with and without intracanal post) for the rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with severe coronal structure damage.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In-vitro studies comparing endocrowns with (post-)core-crown restorations were selected and screened by two independent reviewers. The included studies were submitted to the risk of bias analysis using the RoBDEMAT tool and the biomechanical outcomes were collected for qualitative analysis. The extracted data were presented based on comparative analyses among the included studies.
RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included: 9 studies evaluated restorations of molars, 14 for premolars, and 8 studies evaluated anterior restorations. For the majority of the studies, endocrowns showed either similar or greater survival rates under fatigue and monotonic load than (post-)core-crown restorations, irrespectively of the tooth. The endocrowns showed more favorable failure patterns than (post-)core-crowns, irrespectively of the tooth. Endocrowns produced lower stresses in the restorative material for molars and premolars and in the luting material for premolars than (post-)core-crown restorations. The included studies presented adequate information for most items of the RoBDEMAT risk of bias tool.
CONCLUSIONS: Endocrowns showed similar or greater biomechanical performance than the traditional (post-)core-crown restorations in most of the evaluated studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that endocrowns present either similar or greater biomechanical performance than core-crown restorations for anterior and posterior endodontically treated teeth with severe structural damage.
METHODS: A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. In-vitro studies comparing endocrowns with (post-)core-crown restorations were selected and screened by two independent reviewers. The included studies were submitted to the risk of bias analysis using the RoBDEMAT tool and the biomechanical outcomes were collected for qualitative analysis. The extracted data were presented based on comparative analyses among the included studies.
RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included: 9 studies evaluated restorations of molars, 14 for premolars, and 8 studies evaluated anterior restorations. For the majority of the studies, endocrowns showed either similar or greater survival rates under fatigue and monotonic load than (post-)core-crown restorations, irrespectively of the tooth. The endocrowns showed more favorable failure patterns than (post-)core-crowns, irrespectively of the tooth. Endocrowns produced lower stresses in the restorative material for molars and premolars and in the luting material for premolars than (post-)core-crown restorations. The included studies presented adequate information for most items of the RoBDEMAT risk of bias tool.
CONCLUSIONS: Endocrowns showed similar or greater biomechanical performance than the traditional (post-)core-crown restorations in most of the evaluated studies.
CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that endocrowns present either similar or greater biomechanical performance than core-crown restorations for anterior and posterior endodontically treated teeth with severe structural damage.
摘要：
目的：评估和比较，通过对文献的系统回顾，内冠和传统核心冠（有和没有肛门内的桩）的生物力学性能，用于修复严重冠状结构损伤的经牙髓治疗的牙齿。
方法：在MEDLINE/PubMed中进行了系统搜索，Scopus,和WebofScience数据库。选择并由两名独立的审阅者筛选比较内冠与（后）核心冠修复体的体外研究。使用RoBDEMAT工具对纳入的研究进行偏倚风险分析，并收集生物力学结果进行定性分析。提取的数据是根据纳入研究的比较分析得出的。
结果：包括31项研究：9项研究评估了磨牙的修复体，14用于前磨牙，8项研究评估了前牙修复。对于大多数研究，内冠在疲劳和单调负荷下的存活率与（后）核心冠修复体相似或更高，与牙齿无关。内冠显示出比(后)核心冠更有利的失效模式，与牙齿无关。与（后）核心冠修复体相比，内冠体在磨牙和前磨牙的修复材料以及前磨牙的修复材料中产生的应力较低。纳入的研究提供了RoBDEMAT偏见风险工具的大多数项目的足够信息。
结论：在大多数评估研究中，与传统（后）核心冠修复体相比，内冠显示出相似或更高的生物力学性能。
结论：这项系统评价显示，对于严重结构损伤的前牙和后牙，内冠修复体表现出与核心冠修复体相似或更大的生物力学性能。
方法：在MEDLINE/PubMed中进行了系统搜索，Scopus,和WebofScience数据库。选择并由两名独立的审阅者筛选比较内冠与（后）核心冠修复体的体外研究。使用RoBDEMAT工具对纳入的研究进行偏倚风险分析，并收集生物力学结果进行定性分析。提取的数据是根据纳入研究的比较分析得出的。
结果：包括31项研究：9项研究评估了磨牙的修复体，14用于前磨牙，8项研究评估了前牙修复。对于大多数研究，内冠在疲劳和单调负荷下的存活率与（后）核心冠修复体相似或更高，与牙齿无关。内冠显示出比(后)核心冠更有利的失效模式，与牙齿无关。与（后）核心冠修复体相比，内冠体在磨牙和前磨牙的修复材料以及前磨牙的修复材料中产生的应力较低。纳入的研究提供了RoBDEMAT偏见风险工具的大多数项目的足够信息。
结论：在大多数评估研究中，与传统（后）核心冠修复体相比，内冠显示出相似或更高的生物力学性能。
结论：这项系统评价显示，对于严重结构损伤的前牙和后牙，内冠修复体表现出与核心冠修复体相似或更大的生物力学性能。
