Fracture resistance and failure mode of three esthetic CAD-CAM post and core restorations.

BACKGROUND: The rising demand for improved aesthetics has driven the utilization of recently introduced aesthetic materials for creating custom post and core restorations. However, information regarding the fracture resistance of these materials remains unclear, which limits their practical use as custom post and core restorations in clinical applications. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of three non-metallic esthetic post and core restorations and their modes of failure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine single-rooted human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated. A standardized post space preparation of 9mm length was performed to all teeth to receive custom-made post and core restorations. The prepared teeth were randomly allocated to receive a post and core restoration made of one of the following materials (n=13): glass fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), polyetheretherketone (PEEK) and polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network (PICN). An intraoral scanner was used to scan all teeth including the post spaces. Computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) was used to fabricate post and core restorations. Post and core restorations were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement. All specimens were subjected to fracture resistance testing using a universal testing machine. Failure mode analysis was assessed using a stereomicroscope and SEM. The data was statistically analyzed using One-Way ANOVA test followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using Bonferroni adjusted significance level. RESULTS: Custom PEEK post and core restorations displayed the least fracture load values at 286.16 ± 67.09 N. In contrast, FRC exhibited the highest average fracture load at 452.60 ± 105.90 N, closely followed by PICN at 426.76 ± 77.99 N. In terms of failure modes, 46.2% of specimens with PICN were deemed non-restorable, while for PEEK and FRC, these percentages were 58.8% and 61.5%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitation of this study, both FRC and PICN demonstrated good performance regarding fracture resistance, surpassing that of PEEK.

Biomechanical reinforcement by CAD-CAM materials affects stress distributions of posterior composite bridges: 3D finite element analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This 3D finite element analysis study aimed to investigate the effect of reinforcing CAD-CAM bars on stress distribution in various components of a posterior composite bridge. METHODS: A virtual model mimicking the absence of an upper second premolar was created, featuring class II cavity preparations on the proximal surfaces of the adjacent abutment teeth surrounding the edentulous space. Five distinct finite element analysis (FEA) models were generated, each representing a CAD-CAM reinforcing bar material: 3-YTZP (IPS. emax ZirCAD MO; Zr), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD; EX), nano-hybrid resin composite (Grandio Blocs; GB), Fibre-reinforced composite (Trilor; Tri), and polyetheretherketone (PEEK). A veneering resin composite was employed to simulate the replacement of the missing premolar (pontic). In the FEA, an axial force of 600 N and a transverse load of 20 N were applied at the center of the pontic. Subsequently, maximum von Mises (mvM) and maximum principal stresses (σmax) were computed across various components of the generated models. Additionally, shear stresses at the interface between the CAD-CAM bars and the veneering resin composite were determined. RESULTS: CAD-CAM materials with high modulus of elasticity, such as Zr and EX, exhibited the highest mvM stresses and shear stresses while transferring the lowest stress to the veneering resin composite in comparison to other materials. Conversely, PEEK demonstrated the lowest mvM stresses but produced the highest stresses within the veneering resin composite. There was a uniform distribution of mvM stresses in the remaining tooth structure among all groups, except for a noticeable elevation in the molar region of Zr and EX groups. SIGNIFICANCE: Reinforcing CAD-CAM bar materials with a high modulus of elasticity, such as Zr and EX, may result in debonding failures at the connector sites of posterior composite bridges. Conversely, GB, PEEK, and Tri have the potential to cause fracture failures at the connectors rather than debonding.