Finite element analysis of multi-piece post-crown restoration using different types of adhesives

Abstract

When restoring a missing tooth by affixing a post-and-crown to a root canal, the root canal’s strength determines the best choice of adhesive, researchers in China report. Zhi-Hui Liu and colleagues at Jilin University modeled the behavior of five different adhesives — zinc phosphate, carboxylic acid zinc, glass ionomer, panavia F, and superbond — under biting and chewing stresses. Using a mathematical technique known as finite element analysis, the researchers determined that elastic adhesives buffer the root canal against biting and chewing. Over time, however, these adhesives show greater deformation over time, ultimately placing stress on the root canal orifice. Stiffer adhesives transfer most of the load to the root canal, protecting the root canal orifice. Liu thus recommends elastic adhesives for patients with thin root canals, and stiffer adhesives for patients with thicker root canals.

Keywords

adhesive / finite element analysis / molar restoration / multi-piece post-crown / stomatology

References

[1] Jung S, Min K, Chang H. Microleakage and fracture patterns of teeth restored with different posts under dynamic loading. J Prosthet Dent, 2007, 98(4): 270-276.

[2] Shimizu A, Hasegawa M, Kishimoto H. An in vitro investigation of the tooth strains associated with four different restorations in class II cavity. J Prosthet Dent, 1996, 76(3): 309-314.

[3] Darbyshire PA, Messer LB, Douglas WH. Microleakage in class II composite restorations bonded to dentin using thermal and load cycling. J Dent Res, 1988, 67(3): 585-587.

[4] Ausiello P, Davidson CL, Cascone P. Debonding of adhesively restored deep class II MOD restorations after functional loading. Am J Dent, 1999, 12(2): 84-88.

[5] Fissore B, Nicholls J, Yuodelis RA. Load fatigue of teeth restored by a dentin bonding agent and a posterior composite resin. J Prosthet Dent, 1991, 65(1): 80-85.

[6] Fan P, Nicholls JI, Kois JC. Load fatigue of five restoration modalities in structurally compromised premolars. Int J Prosthodont, 1995, 8(3): 213-220.

[7] Torabi K, Fattahi F. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored by different FRC posts: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res, 2009, 20(3): 282-287.

[8] Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Apicellar D. Valuation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis. Dent Mater, 2006, 22(11): 1035-1044.

[9] Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A. Finite element analysis of stresses in endodontically treated, dowel-restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent, 2005, 94(4): 321-329.

[10] Okada D, Miura H, Suzuki C. Stress distribution in roots restored with different types of post systems with composite resin. Dent Mater J, 2008, 27(4): 605-611.

[11] Maceri F, Martignoni M, Vairo G. Mechanical behaviour of endodontic restorations with multiple prefabricated posts: a finite-element approach. J Biomech, 2007, 40(11): 2386-2398.

[12] Ausiello P, Apicella A, Davidson CL . Effect of adhesive layer properties on stress distribution in composite restorations—a 3D finite element analysis. 2002; 18( 4): 295–303.

[13] Placido E, Meira J, Lima RG. Shear versus micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater, 2007, 23(9): 1086-1092.

[14] Li LL, Wang ZY, Bai ZC. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of weakened roots restored with different cements in combination with titanium alloy posts. Chin Med J, 2006, 119(4): 305-311.

[15] Su K, Chang C, Chuang S. Biomechanical evaluation of endodontic posts-finite element analysis. J Biomechan, 2007, 40(S2): S463-S464.

[16] Sorrentino R, Aversa R, Ferro V. 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, 2007, 23(8): 983-993.

[17] Adanir N, Belli S. Stress analysis of a maxillary central incisor restored with different posts. Eur J Dent, 2007, 1(2): 67-71.

[18] Eskitascioglu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods. J Endodont, 2002, 28(9): 629-633.

[19] Nissan J, Dmitry Y, Assif D. The use of reinforced composite resin cement as compensation for reduced post length. J Prosthet Dent, 2001, 86(3): 304-308.