{Reference Type}: Journal Article
{Title}: Fracture resistance of CAD/CAM endocrowns made from different materials in maxillary premolar interproximal defects.
{Author}: Jin F;Yu X;Zhou H;Zhou J;Yang J;Luo Y;Chen Z;
{Journal}: Clin Oral Investig
{Volume}: 28
{Issue}: 4
{Year}: 2024 Mar 16
{Factor}: 3.606
{DOI}: 10.1007/s00784-024-05605-6
{Abstract}: <B>OBJECTIVE: </B>This in vitro study aims to compare the fracture resistance of three CAD/CAM materials used in endocrown restoration of interproximal defects in maxillary premolars.<BR><B>METHODS: </B>45 maxillary premolars extracted as part of orthodontic treatment were included. Following standardized root canal treatment, all teeth were prepared into Mesial-Occlusal (MO) cavity types. The samples were then randomly divided into three groups: LD [repaired with lithium disilicate glass ceramics (IPS e.max CAD)], VE [treated with polymer-infiltrated ceramics (Vita Enamic)], and LU [repaired with resin-based nanoceramics (Lava Ultimate)]. Axial static loading was applied using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min until fracture, and fracture resistance and failure modes were recorded.<BR><B>RESULTS: </B>Regarding Fracture Resistance Values (FRVs), the LD group exhibited significantly higher values than the other two groups, VE (P = 0.028) and LU (P = 0.005), which showed no significant difference (P = 0.778). On the other hand, regarding failure modes, the LD group had a higher prevalence of irreparable fractures compared to the other two groups, VE (P < 0.001) and LU (P < 0.001), which showed no significant difference.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>Although lithium disilicate glass ceramics exhibited higher FRVs, they had a lower repair probability. In contrast, polymer-infiltrated ceramics and resin-based nanoceramics contributed to tooth structure preservation.<BR><B>CONCLUSIONS: </B>For maxillary premolars with interproximal defects following root canal treatment, resin ceramic composites are recommended for restoration to enhance abutment teeth protection.