Evaluation of maxillary anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with different types of crowns

 
 
 
  • Abstract
  • Keywords
  • References
  • PDF
  • Abstract


    Statement of the problem: restoring endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is one of the major treatments provided by a dentist. Glass fiber posts (GFP) showed good clinical performance during last few years.

    Aim of the study; to assess and compare the clinical as well as the radiographic performance of different types of ceramic crown systems used in restoration of maxillary anterior teeth over a cemented GFP and composite resin core.

    Materials and methods: 50 ETT with GFP were included in this study. These teeth were divided into four gropes (composite resin. Porcelain fused to metal (PFM), e. max and zirconia restorations). Both the clinical and radiographic assessments were done for the restoration at a period of one week, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months after composite build up and crown's cementations. All data were registered and analyzed by SPSS program using percentages and Kaplan-Meyer analysis. Fisher’s exact test was used for categorical values while log-rank test was used for descriptive statistical analysis.

    Results: the clinical assessment showed no changes in the one week, 3 and 6 months in the four groups. While during the 9 and 12 months, a movement of the crown margin under finger pressure was present in one case, loss or retention in 2 cases of zirconia, the periodontal status with violation of biological width was present in one case of PFM and finally the color changes were obvious in one case of PFM and 2 cases of composite restoration. All the restorations in the four groups had no radiographic changes in the one week and three-month assessments. While during six-month follow-up, a loosed of retention in one case of the zirconia crown was detected. At the 9 and 12 months, two cases showed recurrent caries at the cervical margin of the composite restoration, cases with periapical infection and other with loss of retention of the post were recorded in the PFM restoration.

    Conclusion: e. Max and zirconia all ceramic crowns showed better clinical and radiographic performance than the PFM and composite restorations over 12 months recall.


  • Keywords


    Clinical; Endodontically Treated Teeth; Follow-Up; Glass Fiber-Reinforced Posts; Radiographic; Maxillary Teeth

  • References


      [1] Preethi GA, Kala M (2008). Clinical evaluation of carbon fiber reinforced carbon endodontic post, glass fiber reinforced post with cast post and core: A one year comparative clinical study. J Conser Dent; 11(4): 162–167. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.48841.

      [2] Gutman JL (1992). The dentin-root complex: Anatomic and biological considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent; 67: 458-67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90073-J.

      [3] Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Condos S et al (1996). Four materials measured for fracture strength in combination with five designs of endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent; 76: 487-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90006-2.

      [4] Sorenson JP, Martinoff JT (1983). Intracanal reinforcement and coronal coverage. A study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosrhet Dent; 51; 780-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90376-7.

      [5] Paul S, Scharer P (1998). Post and core reconstruction for fixed prosthodontics restoration. Pract periodontics aesthet dent; 5; 513-20.

      [6] Fuss Z, Lustig J, Katz A, Tamse A (2001). An evaluation of for endodontically treated vertical root fracture teeth: Impact of restorative procedures. J Endo; 27; 46-48. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200101000-00017.

      [7] King PA, Setchell DJ, Rees JS (2003). Clinical evaluation of a carbon fiber reinforced carbon endodontic post. J Oral Rehabil; 30: 785-789. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01178.x.

      [8] Usumz A, Cobankara FK, Ozturk N, Eskitasciogku G, Belli S (2004). Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth with different dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent; 92:163–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.004.

      [9] Grandin S, Goracci C, Tay FR, Grandin R, Ferrari M (2005). Clinical Evaluation of the Use of Fiber Posts and Direct Resin Restoration for Endodontically Treated Teeth. Int J Prosthod; 18: 399-404.

      [10] Trautmann G, Gutmann JL, Nunn ME, Witherspoon DE, Shulman JD (2000). Restoring teeth that are endodontically treated through existing crowns. Part II: Survey of restorative materials commonly used. Quintessence Int; 31: 719-28.

      [11] Kato H, Matsumura H, Tanaka T, Atsuta M (1996). Bond strength and durability of porcelain bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent; 75: 163- 168. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(96)90094-3.

      [12] Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN (2000). Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent; 13(Spec No): 9B–13B.

      [13] Teixeira ECN, Teixeira FB, Piasick JR, Thompson JY (2006). An in vitro assessment of prefabricated fiber post systems. JADA; 137: 1006-1012. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0323.

      [14] Öztürk E, Bolay S, Tuzgiray E, Baykara M. (2011), Esthetic Restoration Procedures for Endodontically Treated Anterior Roots. Clin Dent Research; 35(2): 28-34.

      [15] Aquuillino SA, Caplan DI (2002). Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosth Dent; 37; 258-63.

      [16] Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Raffter M, Billy E (2003). Fracture resistance of endod-ontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosth Dent; 39; 360-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.75.

      [17] Altun C, Tozium TF, Guven G (2008). Multidisciplinary Approach to the Exhibition of a Crown Fracture with Glass-Fiber-Reinforced Composite: A Case report. JCDA; 74: 363-66.

      [18] Yip KH, Smales RL, Kaidonis JA (2004). Differential wear of teeth and restorative materials: Clinical implication. Int J Prosthod; 17: 350-56.

      [19] Gemalmaz D, Ergin S (2002). Clinical evaluation of all ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent; 87: 189-96 https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.120653.

      [20] Etman MK, Woolford MJ (2010). Three-year clinical evaluation of two ceramic systems: a preliminary study. J Prosthet Dent; 103: 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60010-8.

      [21] Pradíes G, Zarauz C, Valverde A, Ferreiroa A, Martínez-Rus F. (2015) Clinical evaluation comparing the fit of all-ceramic crowns obtained from silicone and digital intraoral impressions based on wave front sampling technology. J Dent; 43: 201-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2014.12.007.

      [22] Taskonak B, Sertgöz A (2006). Two-year clinical evaluation of lithia-disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns and fixed partial dentures. Dent Mater; 22: 1008-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.028.

      [23] Ajayi DM, Oyekunle OOD, Gbadebo OS, Shaba PO (2014). Randomized clinical study comparing metallic and glass fiber post in restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Indi J Dent Rese; 25: 58-63. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.131126.

      [24] Rinke S, Schäfer S, Lange K, Gersdorff N, Roediger M (2013). Practice-based clinical evaluation of metal–ceramic and zirconia molar crowns: 3-year results. J Oral Rehab; 40: 228-37. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12018.

      [25] Muhittin T, Sun T (2015). Clinical evaluation of 121 lithium disilicate all-ceramic crowns up to 9 years. Quintessence International; 46: 189-97.

      [26] Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Liechtenstein (2005). Scientific Documentation IPS e.max® CAD, Page 1-16.


 

View

Download

Article ID: 8008
 
DOI: 10.14419/ijdr.v5i2.8008




Copyright © 2012-2015 Science Publishing Corporation Inc. All rights reserved.