Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · European Journal of General Dentistry 2021; 10(03): 158-169
DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1736463
Original Article

Biomechanical Assessment of the Influence of Inlay/Onlay Design and Material on Stress Distribution in Nonvital Molars

Ayham Darwich
1   Department of Biomedical Engineering, Faculty of Biomedical Engineering, Al-Andalus University for Medical Sciences, Tartous, Syria
2   Department of Industrial Automation, Faculty of Technical Engineering, University of Tartous, Tartous, Syria
,
Abeer Aljareh 
3   Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
,
Omar Aladel
3   Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Damascus University, Damascus, Syria
,
Szabolcs Szávai
4   Department of Machine and Product Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary
,
Hasan Nazha
4   Department of Machine and Product Design, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Informatics, University of Miskolc, Miskolc, Hungary
› Author Affiliations
› Further Information
Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of inlays/onlays with or without pulp extension from different materials on stress distribution in endodontically treated molars by three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D FEA).

Materials and Methods We used 3D mandibular molar models in this study. The models represented mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities restored by inlays, onlays that covered buccal cusps, and onlays that covered all cusps with pulp extension (modified inlay/onlay) or without pulp extension (conventional inlay/onlay). Three materials (L: lithium disilicate glass-ceramic, P: polymer-infiltrated ceramic network [PICN], and C: nanofilled composite resin) were utilized. A force of 600 N was applied vertically and obliquely. Stress distribution in FEA models was analyzed using the von Mises theory.

Results The results revealed that an oblique load generated higher stresses than vertical load. Composite resin restorations transmitted almost all the stress to the neighboring tooth structures, while lithium disilicate ceramic restorations absorbed most of the stresses. Moreover, modified inlays and onlays with pulp extension proved better than conventional inlays/onlays in terms of stress redistribution in dental structures. Onlays showed a better pattern of stress distribution than inlays within the restoration and the restored tooth.

Conclusions According to stress distribution in dental structures, modified lithium disilicate ceramic onlays with pulp extension have been found to be the best choice to restore endodontically treated molars among the studied restorations.

Keywords

inlay - onlay - restoration materials - restoration design - finite element analysis


Publication History

Article published online:
18 October 2021

© 2021. European Journal of General Dentistry. This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)

Thieme Medical and Scientific Publishers Pvt. Ltd.
A-12, 2nd Floor, Sector 2, Noida-201301 UP, India

 

  • References

  • 1 Souza ACO, Xavier TA, Platt JA, Borges ALS. Effect of base and inlay restorative material on the stress distribution and fracture resistance of weakened premolars. Oper Dent 2015; 40 (04) E158-E166
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Lin GSS, Ghani NRNA, Noorani TY, Ismail NH. Fracture resistance of the permanent restorations for endodontically treated premolars. Eur J Gen Dent 2018; 7: 56-60
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51 (06) 780-784
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 5th ed.. Elsevier Health Sciences, China; 2015: 890
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004; 30 (05) 289-301
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Biacchi GR, Basting RT. Comparison of fracture strength of endocrowns and glass fiber post-retained conventional crowns. Oper Dent 2012; 37 (02) 130-136
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Chang CY, Kuo JS, Lin YS, Chang YH. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns. J Dent Sci 2009; 4: 110-117
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Jiang W, Bo H, Yongchun G, LongXing N. Stress distribution in molars restored with inlays or onlays with or without endodontic treatment: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2010; 103 (01) 6-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Morimoto S, Rebello de Sampaio FBW, Braga MM, Sesma N, Özcan M. Survival rate of resin and ceramic inlays, onlays, and overlays: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Dent Res 2016; 95 (09) 985-994
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Seow LL, Toh CG, Wilson NH. Strain measurements and fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with all-ceramic restorations. J Dent 2015; 43 (01) 126-132
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Oen KT, Veitz-Keenan A, Spivakovsky S, Wong YJ, Bakarman E, Yip J. CAD/CAM versus traditional indirect methods in the fabrication of inlays, onlays, and crowns. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014; CD011063
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Holberg C, Winterhalder P, Wichelhaus A, Hickel R, Huth K. Fracture risk of lithium-disilicate ceramic inlays: a finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (12) 1244-1250
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Dejak B, Młotkowski A. A comparison of mvM stress of inlays, onlays and endocrowns made from various materials and their bonding with molars in a computer simulation of mastication - FEA. Dent Mater 2020; 36 (07) 854-864
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Çelik Köycü B, Imirzalioğlu P, Özden UA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution in inlay-restored mandibular first molar under simultaneous thermomechanical loads. Dent Mater J 2016; 35 (02) 180-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Mitra SB, Wu D, Holmes BN. An application of nanotechnology in advanced dental materials. J Am Dent Assoc 2003; 134 (10) 1382-1390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Hopp CD, Land MF. Considerations for ceramic inlays in posterior teeth: a review. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2013; 5: 21-32
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 McLaren EA, Cao PT. Ceramics in dentistry—part I: classes of materials. Inside Dentistry 2009; 5 (09) 94-104
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, Silva NR, Bonfante EA. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont 2015; 28 (03) 227-235
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Li W, Sun J. Effects of ceramic density and sintering temperature on the mechanical properties of a novel polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network zirconia dental restorative (filling) material. Med Sci Monit 2018; 24: 3068-3076
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cubas GB, Camacho GB, Pereira-Cenci T, Nonaka T, Barbin EL. Influence of cavity design and restorative material on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars. Gen Dent 2010; 58 (02) e84-e88
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Liu X, Fok A, Li H. Influence of restorative material and proximal cavity design on the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restoration. Dent Mater 2014; 30 (03) 327-333
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Magne P, Oganesyan T. Premolar cuspal flexure as a function of restorative material and occlusal contact location. Quintessence Int 2009; 40 (05) 363-370
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 St-Georges AJ, Sturdevant JR, Swift Jr EJ, Thompson JY. Fracture resistance of prepared teeth restored with bonded inlay restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89 (06) 551-557
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Menicucci G, Mossolov A, Mozzati M, Lorenzetti M, Preti G. Tooth-implant connection: some biomechanical aspects based on finite element analyses. Clin Oral Implants Res 2002; 13 (03) 334-341
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 D'souza KM, Aras MA. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the stress distribution pattern in a mandibular first molar tooth restored with five different restorative materials. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017; 17 (01) 53-60
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Meijer HJA, Kuiper JH, Starmans FJM, Bosman F. Stress distribution around dental implants: influence of superstructure, length of implants, and height of mandible. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68 (01) 96-102
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Jiang Q, Huang Y, Tu X, Li Z, He Y, Yang X. Biomechanical properties of first maxillary molars with different endodontic cavities: a finite element analysis. J Endod 2018; 44 (08) 1283-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Belli R, Wendler M, de Ligny D. et al. Chairside CAD/CAM materials. Part 1: Measurement of elastic constants and microstructural characterization. Dent Mater 2017; 33 (01) 84-98
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Romeed SA, Dunne SM. Stress analysis of different post-luting systems: a three-dimensional finite element analysis. Aust Dent J 2013; 58 (01) 82-88
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Rodrigues Jr SA, Scherrer SS, Ferracane JL, Della Bona A. Microstructural characterization and fracture behavior of a microhybrid and a nanofill composite. Dent Mater 2008; 24 (09) 1281-1288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Yamanel K, Çaglar A, Gülsahi K, Özden UA. 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 (06) 661-670
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Gulec L, Ulusoy N. Effect of endocrown restorations with different CAD/CAM materials: 3D finite element and weibull analyses. BioMed Res Int 2017; 2017: 5638683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Yang HS, Lang LA, Guckes AD, Felton DA. The effect of thermal change on various dowel-and-core restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86 (01) 74-80
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Mei ML, Chen YM, Li H, Chu CH. Influence of the indirect restoration design on the fracture resistance: a finite element study. Biomed Eng Online 2016; 15: 3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Coldea A, Swain MV, Thiel N. Mechanical properties of polymer-infiltrated-ceramic-network materials. Dent Mater 2013; 29 (04) 419-426
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen's pathways of the pulp. 11th ed.. Elsevier Health Sciences, Canada; 2015: 1143
    Google Scholar
  • 37 Srirekha A, Bashetty K. Infinite to finite: an overview of finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2010; 21 (03) 425-432
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Durand LB, Guimarães JC, Monteiro Junior S, Baratieri LN. Effect of ceramic thickness and composite bases on stress distribution of inlays–a finite element analysis. Braz Dent J 2015; 26 (02) 146-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Ona M, Watanabe C, Igarashi Y, Wakabayashi N. Influence of preparation design on failure risks of ceramic inlays: a finite element analysis. J Adhes Dent 2011; 13 (04) 367-373
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Leung BT, Tsoi JK, Matinlinna JP, Pow EH. Comparison of mechanical properties of three machinable ceramics with an experimental fluorophlogopite glass ceramic. J Prosthet Dent 2015; 114 (03) 440-446
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar