■在当前的修复牙科实践中使用Endocrown型修复体作为其他修复体的替代方案的机会,成熟的冠状神经根修复方法和不断发展的粘合材料调色板使这些修复在过去几年中更受欢迎。
■目的是回顾有关Endocrown修复体的机械性能-断裂强度和阻力的可用文献,存活率,准备设计-边际和内部适应,和美学。
■搜索是在四个数据库上进行的:PubMed,Scopus(ScienceDirect),WebofScience,和Scielo使用以下术语:“内冠”,“牙髓冠”,和“没有堆积冠”。最初,共选择了在2015年至2021年5月期间发表的163篇文章.在重复之后,论文仅作为摘要提出,除英语以外的任何其他语言的文章,和评论文章被删除;共有72篇文章有待考虑。在评估了72篇经过审议的文章之后,选择了37名适合本次审查。取消其他35篇文章的原因是:它们的主要重点不是内冠词,例如,直接修复,活牙的间接修复;病例报告;研究方案。
■从所选的37篇文章中,34个专注于机械性能,包括制剂设计的影响,关于存活率,其中也有一个关于美学的观点。
■这篇综述中包含的文献表明,在某些情况下,内冠状体的表现与其他冠状体相似甚至更好。然而,这种说法必须谨慎解释,鉴于大多数文章是体外或有限元分析研究。鉴于这篇综述中包含的文章中发现的高度矛盾的结果,作者认为,结论是合理的,需要进一步的研究,以确认的可行性和材料的最佳选择。
UNASSIGNED: The opportunity of using Endocrown-type restorations in the current prosthetic dentistry practice as an alternative to other, well-established methods of corono-radicular restorations and the evolving palette of adhesive materials has made these restorations more popular in the last few years.
UNASSIGNED: The purpose is to review the available literature about Endocrown restorations regarding mechanical properties - fracture strength and resistance, survival rate, the preparation design - marginal and internal adaptation, and esthetics.
UNASSIGNED: The search was carried out on four databases: PubMed, Scopus (ScienceDirect), Web of Science, and Scielo using the following terms: \"endocrowns\", \"endodontic crown\", and\" no buildup crown\". Initially, a total of 163 articles published between 2015 and May 2021 were selected. After the duplicates, papers presented only as abstracts, articles in any other languages except English, and review articles were eliminated; a total of 72 articles remained to be considered for this review.After assessing the 72 considered articles, 37 were chosen as fit for this review. The reasons for the elimination of the other 35 articles were: their main focus was other than endocrowns, e.g., direct restorations, indirect restorations of vital teeth; case reports; study protocols.
UNASSIGNED: From the 37 articles selected, 34 were focused on mechanical properties, including the influence of the preparation design, and three on survival rate, of which one also had a point of view regarding esthetics.
UNASSIGNED: The literature included in this review shows that endocrowns perform similarly or even better in some cases than other coronal restorations. However, this statement must be interpreted cautiously, given that most articles were in vitro or finite element analysis studies. Given the high degree of conflicting results found in the articles included in this review, the authors consider as reasonable to conclude that further studies are needed to confirm the feasibility of endocrowns and the best choice of material.