Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Influence of the restorative procedure factors on stress values in premolar with MOD cavity: a finite element study

  • Original article
  • Published:
Medical & Biological Engineering & Computing Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

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.

ᅟ

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN, Coiana C (2005) Reconstruction of devital teeth using direct fiber-reinforced composite resins: a case report. J Adhes Dent 7:165–171

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lin CL, Chang WJ, Lin YS, Chang YH, Lin YF (2009) Evaluation of the relative contributions of multi-factors in an adhesive MOD restoration using FEA and the Taguchi method. Dent Mater 25:1073–1081. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.01.105

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Kantardžić I, Vasiljević D, Blažić L, Lužanin O (2012) Influence of cavity design preparation on stress values in maxillary premolar: a finite element analysis. Croat Med J 53:568–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Yikilgan I, Bala O (2013) How can stress be controlled in endodontically treated teeth? A 3D finite element analysis. Scientific World Journal 2013:426134. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/426134

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Soares PV, Milito G, Pereira FA, Zéola LF, Naves MF, Faria VL, Machado AC, Souza PG, Reis BR (2013) Influence of geometrical configuration of the cavity in the stress distribution of restored premolars with composite resin. Journal of Research in Dentistry 1:72–82

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Magne P, Knezevic A (2009) Thickness of CAD-CAM composite resin overlays influences fatigue resistance of endodontically treated premolars. Dent Mater 25:1264–1268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.05.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mondelli J, Sene F, Ramos RP, Benetti AR (2007) Tooth structure and fracture strength of cavities. Braz Dent J 18:134–138

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. ElAyouti A, Serry MI, Geis-Gerstorfer J, Löst C (2011) Influence of cusp coverage on the fracture resistance of premolars with endodontic access cavities. Int Endod J 44:543–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01859.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Lin CL, Chang YH, Liu PR (2008) Multi-factorial analysis of a cusp-replacing adhesive premolar restoration: a finite element study. J Dent 36:194–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.11.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Xie KX, Wang XY, Gao XJ, Yuan CY, Li JX, Chu CH (2012) Fracture resistance of root filled premolar teeth restored with direct composite resin with or without cusp coverage. Int Endod J 45:524–529. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02005.x

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lin CL, Chang CH, Ko CC (2001) Multifactorial analysis of an MOD restored human premolar using auto-mesh finite element approach. J Oral Rehabil 28:576–585

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Gonzáles-López S, de Haro-Gasquet F, Vílchez-Díaz MÁ, Ceballos L, Bravo M (2006) Effect of restorative procedures and occlusal loading on cuspal deflection. Oper Dent 31:33–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Fonseca RB, Fernandes-Neto AJ, Correr-Sobrinho L, Soares CJ (2007) The influence of cavity preparation design on fracture strength and mode of fracture of laboratory-processed composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 98:277–284

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Chang YH, Lin WH, Kuo WC, Chang CY, Lin CL (2009) Mechanical interactions of cuspal-coverage designs and cement thickness in a cusp-replacing ceramic premolar restoration: a finite element study. Med Biol Eng Comput 47:367–374. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-008-0379-y

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Panahandeh N, Torabzadeh H, Ziaee N, Mahdian M, Tootiaee B, Ghasemi A (2017) The effect of composite thickness on the stress distribution pattern of restored premolar teeth with cusp reduction. J Prosthodont 26:440–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12422

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Hannig C, Westphal C, Becker K, Attin T (2005) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays. J Prosthet Dent 94:342–349

    Article  CAS  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Cubas GB, Habekost L, Camacho GB, Pereira-Cenci T (2011) Fracture resistance of premolars restored with inlay and onlay ceramic restoration and luted with two different agents. J Prosthodont Res 55:53–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2010.07.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2011) Fracture strength and fracture patterns of root filled teeth restored with direct resin restorations. J Dent 39:527–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2011.05.003

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Vukicevic AM, Zelic K, Jovicic G, Djuric M, Filipovic N (2015) Influence of dental restorations and mastication loadings on dentine fatigue behaviour: image-based modelling approach. J Dent 43:556–567. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2015.02.011

    Article  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chuang SF, Huang PS, Chen TYF, Huang LH, Su KC, Chang CH (2016) Shrinkage behaviors of dental composite restorations—the experimental-numerical hybrid analysis. Dent Mater 32:e362–e373 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.022

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Plotino G, Buono L, Grande NM, Lamorgese V, Somma F (2008) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent 99:225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60047-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Castañeda-Espinosa JC, Pereira RA, Cavalcanti AP, Mondelli RF (2007) Transmission of composite polymerization contraction force through a flowable composite and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Appl Oral Sci 15:495–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH (2012) Assessment of laminate technique using glass ionomer and resin composite for restoration of root filled teeth. J Dent 40:617–623. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2012.04.006

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google 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

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sakaguchi RL, Powers JM (2012) Craig's restorative dental materials. Elsevier, Philadelphia

    Google 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 603–22

  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

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Magne P, Oganesyan T (2009) CT scan-based finite element analysis of premolar cuspal deflection following operative procedures. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 29:361–369

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A (2008) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars. J Prosthet Dent 99:131–140. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60029-3

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Magne P (2010) Virtual prototyping of adhesively restored, endodontically treated molars. J Prosthet Dent 103:343–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60074-1

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Ichim I, Schmidlin PR, Kieser JA, Swain MV (2007) Mechanical evaluation of cervical glass-ionomer restorations: 3D finite element study. J Dent 35:28–35

    Article  CAS  Google 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 23:983–993

    Article  CAS  Google 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 137–242

  40. Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL, Rengo S (2001) 3D-finite element analyses of cusp movements in a human upper premolar, restored with adhesive resin-based composites. J Biomech 34:1269–1277

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Pantelić DV, Grijuć DŠ, Vasiljević DM (2014) Single-beam, dual-view digital holographic interferometry for biomechanical strain measurements of biological objects. J Biomed Opt 19:127005. https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.19.12.127005

    Article  PubMed  Google 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 17–64

  43. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM (2004) Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehab 31:18–22

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Kim HS, Lee YK, Park JY (2016) Development of FEA procedures for mechanical behaviors of maxilla, teeth and mandible. Int J Precis Eng Manuf 17:785–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Chuang SF, Chang CH, Chen TYF (2011) Contraction behaviors of dental composite restorations—finite element investigation with DIC validation. J of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials 4:2138–2149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.022

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technological Development of the Republic of Serbia (project numbers III45016 and TR35020).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Novi Sad, Hajduk Veljkova 3, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Ivana Kantardžić, Tatjana Maravić & Larisa Blažić

  2. Photonics Centre, Institute of Physics, University of Belgrade, Pregravica 118, 11080, Belgrade, Serbia

    Darko Vasiljević

  3. Department of Production Engineering, Faculty of Technical Sciences, University of Novi Sad, Trg Dositeja Obradovica 6, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Ognjan Lužanin

  4. Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, DIBINEM, University of Bologna - Alma Mater Studiorum, Bologna, Italy

    Tatjana Maravić

  5. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Clinic of Dentistry of Vojvodina, Hajduk Veljkova 12, 21000, Novi Sad, Serbia

    Larisa Blažić

Authors
  1. Ivana Kantardžić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Darko Vasiljević
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ognjan Lužanin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tatjana Maravić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Larisa Blažić
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ivana Kantardžić.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

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).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kantardžić, I., Vasiljević, D., Lužanin, O. et al. Influence of the restorative procedure factors on stress values in premolar with MOD cavity: a finite element study. Med Biol Eng Comput 56, 1875–1886 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-018-1824-1

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11517-018-1824-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation