Fracture resistance of resin endocrowns with and without fiber reinforced composite base material: A preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of fiber-reinforced composite base material on fracture resistance and fracture pattern of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with endocrowns using two different resin nanoceramic computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) restorative material. METHODS: Forty extracted sound maxillary premolars with an occlusal reduction of 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) was performed following root canal treatment. Mesial interproximal box was prepared for each tooth at the margin of the CEJ and randomly distributed into four groups (n = 10) as follows: Group A, no resin build-up in the pulp chamber; Group B, 2 mm of fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) build-up (EverX Posterior, GC).; Group C, no resin build-up in pulp chamber; Group D, 2 mm of FRC build-up. Groups A and B were prepared with resin nanoceramic (RNC) consisting ceramic nanofillers (Lava Ultimate 3 M ESPE), while Group C and D were prepared with RNC consisting ceramic nanohybrid fillers (Cerasmart GC Corp). All samples were subjected to 1,200,000 chewing cycles (1.6 Hz, 50 N) and 5000 thermal cycles (5°C-55°C) for artificial aging on a chewing simulator with thermal cycles (CSTC). Samples that survived the CSTC test without being damaged were subjected to a load-to-fracture test. RESULTS: The highest mean fracture strength was found in Group D (936.0 ± 354.7) and lowest in Group A (684.2 ± 466.9). Fracture strength was higher in groups where FRC was used as a base material than plain restorations. However, there were no significant differences between the Lava and Cerasmart groups with and without FRC (p > 0.05). Most of the samples were irreparably fractured under CEJ. CONCLUSION: Using short FRCs as a resin base material did not significantly improve fracture resistance. Cerasmart and Lava blocks had similar fracture resistance and fracture pattern.

Marginal Bone Loss Around Early-Loaded SLA and SLActive Implants: Radiological Follow-Up Evaluation Up to 6.5 Years.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare marginal bone loss around early-loaded SLA and SLActive tissue-level implants (Straumann Dental Implants; Institut Straumann AG, Basel, Switzerland) after a mean of 81-month follow-up period. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred seven SLA and 68 SLActive implants were placed in 55 patients and loaded with final restoration after 8 and 3 weeks of healing time, respectively. Marginal bone loss around implants was determined radiographically at initial and after a mean observation time ranging between 20 and 81 months. The effect of location (mandible vs maxilla), smoking habit, sex, implant length and diameter, and the type of prosthesis on the marginal bone loss was evaluated. RESULTS: The overall cumulative survival rate was 98.2% being 99% for SLA implants and 97% for SLActive implants. After 20-month follow-up period, mean marginal bone loss values for the SLA and SLActive implants were 0.24 and 0.17 mm, respectively. After 81 months, mean marginal bone loss for the SLA and SLActive implants reached 0.71 and 0.53 mm, respectively. Marginal bone loss was affected by the length and type of implant and patients' smoking habit after a mean observation time of 20 months. However, none of the parameters had any significant effect on the marginal bone loss after a follow-up period of 81 months. CONCLUSION: With both SLA and SLActive implants, successful clinical results could be achieved up to 6.5 years of follow-up period.