Fracture strength of endocrowns after thermomechanical aging.

This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture strength (FS; N) of composite, feldspathic, and glass-ceramic computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) endocrowns after thermomechanical aging. Seventy non-carious human molars were randomly divided into seven groups, according to the CAD/CAM material used for endocrown fabrication. Intact molars without cavity preparations were used as control (n = 10). Following endodontic treatment, standardized endocrown cavities were prepared and endocrowns were fabricated using composite (Cerasmart270, CS and Grandio Blocs, GB), fired and milled zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Celtra Duo, CD), leucite-reinforced feldspar ceramic (LRF Initial, LRF), and feldspathic (Cerec Blocks, CE) materials which were luted with universal adhesive (Futurabond U; Voco) and dual-cure resin cement (Bifix QM). Following thermocycling for 20,000 cycles and 480,000 load cycles in a chewing simulator (CS-4.2, SD Mechatronik), FS was evaluated (Instron). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests (p < 0.05). FS was significantly influenced by the tested material (p = 0.00). CS had the highest FS, which was not significantly different from intact molars and fired CD (p > 0.05). There were no significant differences in FS between LRF, GB, and CD, which were significantly higher than CE. Most of the failure modes of CS, CD, and GB were repairable, whereas those of CE were irreparable. All the tested materials withstood clinically relevant axial forces. Composite endocrowns exhibited more favorable fracture pattern, whereas feldspathic and leucite-reinforced feldspar ceramic endocrowns exhibited mostly irreparable fractures.

New bone formation by orthodontic tooth movement for implant placement.

Bone defects at the anterior regions of the jaws often cause esthetic problems such as gingival disharmonies and longer crowns than neighboring teeth. Variety of procedures can be used in this region for achieving sufficient bone volume with or without different bone graft materials. All of these procedures has their own advantages and disadventages. New bone formation was defined with orthodontic tooth movement in different regions. In this case we present the use of orthodontic tooth movement, for achieving sufficient bone volume, in anterior maxillary region, for esthetic and functional results.