Fracture Resistance and Retention of Three Different Endocrown Materials

Authors

Nada Eisa, Dentist at ministry of health, EgyptFollow
Eman Essam, Professor of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.Follow
Rania Amin, Assistant Professor, Crown and Bridge Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, AL-Azhar University, Cairo, Egypt.Follow
Zainab EL Sharkawy, Lecturer, Crowns and Bridges Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al Azhar University, , Cairo, Egypt.Follow

Corresponding Author

Eisa, Nada

Document Type

Original Study

Abstract

Purpose: The purpose of the current study was to assess fracture resistance and retention of three different endocrown materials. Materials and Methods: Thirty (n=30) sound mandibular molars were endodontically treated and according to endocrown constructed material appointed arbitrarily into 3 groups (n=10 each); Group (1): IPS e.max CAD, Group (2): Vita Suprinity and Group (3): Vita Enamic. Samples of each group were additionally subdivided into2 subgroups (n=5 each) according to fracture resistance and retention tests. Subgroup (A): Samples subjected to fracture resistance test and mode of failure. Subgroup (B): Samples subjected to retention test and mode of failure. The samples were thermocycled and seated on a universal testing machine and subjected to fracture resistance and retention test, then Data were statistically analyzed. Results: The highest mean failure load was recorded for Vita Suprinity endocrowns, followed by IPS e-max endocrowns, while Vita Enamic endocrowns recorded the lowest mean failure load.A non-statistically significant difference between the three tested groups of subgroup (A) revealed by using ANOVA test.The highest debonding load was recorded for Vita Enamic endocrowns, followed by IPS e-max CAD endocrowns, while the lowest mean debonding was recorded for Vita Suprinity endocrowns. A non-statistically significant difference between the three tested groups of subgroup (B) revealed by using ANOVA test. Conclusions: Endocrowns of Vita Suprinity showed higher mean failure load value compared to endocrowns of E-max CAD and Vita Enamic. While endocrowns of Vita Enamic showed higher mean debonding load value compared to E-max CAD and Vita Suprinity.

Keywords

Fracture resistance; E-max CAD; Vita Suprinity; Vita Enamic

How to Cite This Article

Eisa, Nada; Essam, Eman; Amin, Rania; and EL Sharkawy, Zainab (2020) "Fracture Resistance and Retention of Three Different Endocrown Materials," Al-Azhar Journal of Dentistry: Vol. 7: Iss. 2, Article 13.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/adjg.2020.11248.1135

Subject Area

Restorative Dentistry Issue (Removable Prosthodontics, Fixed Prosthodontics, Endodontics, Dental Biomaterials, Operative Dentistry)