Influence of the restorative procedure factors on stress values in premolar with MOD cavity: a finite element study
- 54 Downloads
In order to investigate the influence of cusp reduction, cavity isthmus width, and restorative material on stress values in premolar with mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavity, numerical simulations were done on three-dimensional (3D) models of a maxillary second premolar designed using computerized tomography (CT) scan images. The use of four restorative materials (direct resin composite, direct resin composite with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement as the base, indirect resin composite, ceramic), three cavity preparation designs (without cusp coverage, 2-mm palatal cusp coverage, 2-mm palatal and buccal cusp coverage), and two cavity isthmus widths (1/2 and 2/3 intercuspal width) were simulated. After applying a static load of 200 N on the occlusal surface of the tooth, von Mises stresses in the enamel, dentin, and restoration were calculated using finite element analysis (FEA). Stress values in the enamel were primarily influenced by cavity preparation design, while restorative material showed higher contribution in dentin. The lowest stress values were obtained in models with cusp coverage and indirect restorations. Cavity isthmus width had minimal influence on stress values in tooth structures. None of the investigated factors determined stress values in the restoration. In conclusion, the use of ceramic restoration covering both palatal and buccal cusp provided the most favourable stress distribution of premolars with MOD cavity.
KeywordsFinite element analysis Premolar Restorative procedures Cavity preparation design Cusp coverage
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors. The human premolar used in the study was gathered with informed consent as approved by the Ethical Committee of Clinic of Dentistry of Vojvodina (file number 01-3/17-2010).
- 2.González-López S, González-Villafranca MP, Bolaños-Carmona MV, Menéndez-Nuñez M (2009) A new approach to endodontic treatment and operative procedure in nonendodontically treated posterior crown root fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 108:e106–e110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.06.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 17.Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, Soares CJ (2008) Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 99:30–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60006-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 19.Bitter K, Meyer-Lueckel H, Fotiadis N, Blunck U, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM, Paris S (2010) Influence of endodontic treatment, post insertion, and ceramic restoration on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 43:469–477. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01701.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 23.Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Fabianelli A, Gloria A, Martorelli M, Lanzotti A, Watts DC (2017) Mechanical behavior of bulk direct composite versus block composite and lithium disilicate indirect class II restorations by CAD-FEM modeling. Dent Mater 33:690–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.03.014 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Garcia-Godoy F, Gloria A, Lanzotti A, Maietta S, Martorelli M (2017) The effect of cavity-margin-angles and bolus stiffness on the mechanical behavior of indirect resin composite class II restoration. Dent Mater 33:e39–e47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.11.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.Dejak B, Mlotkowski A (2015) A comparison of stresses in molar teeth restored with inlays and direct restorations, including polymerization shrinkage of composite resin and tooth loading during mastication. Dent Mater 31:e77–e87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2014.11.016 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 30.Ausiello P, Ciaramella S, Martorelli M, Lanzotti A, Gloria A, Watts DC (2017) CAD-FE modeling and analysis of class II restorations incorporating resin-composite, glass ionomer and glass ceramic materials. Dent Mater 33:1456–1465. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2017.10.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM (2012) Craig's restorative dental materials. Elsevier, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
- 32.Swift EJ Jr, Sturdevant JR, Ritter AV (2006) Class I and II indirect tooth-coloured restorations. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant’s art and science of operative dentistry, 5th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 603–22Google Scholar
- 33.Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Gomide HA, Araujo CA, Martins LR, Soares CJ (2008) Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 99:114–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60027-X CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 38.Sorrentino R, Aversa R, Ferro V, Auriemma T, Zarone F, Ferrari M, Appicela A (2007) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strain and stress distributions in endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored with different post, core and crown materials. Dent Mater 23:983–993CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 39.Bayne SC, Thompson JY (2006) Biomaterials. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ. Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry, 5th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 137–242Google Scholar
- 42.Sturdevant JR (2006) Clinical significance of dental anatomy, histology, physiology and occlusion. In: Roberson TM, Heymann HO, Swift EJ (ed) Sturdevant's art and science of operative dentistry, 5th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 17–64Google Scholar