A Randomized Clinical Study Evaluating the 30-month Clinical Performance of Class II Indirect Restorations in Endodontically Treated Teeth Using Ceramic, Hybrid, and Composite Computer-aided Design/computer-aided Production Blocks

Overview

Journal J Conserv Dent Endod

Date 2024 Feb 23

PMID 38389739

Authors

Soley Arslan

Mehmet Karagon

Hacer Balkaya

Burak Kose

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Context Background: In the literature, the information about which indirect material is the most appropriate for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth is insufficient. Therefore, studies evaluating the clinical performance of root canal-treated teeth will shed light on this issue for clinicians.

Aim: This clinical study aimed to evaluate the clinical performances of class II indirect restorations using ceramic, hybrid, and composite blocks to endodontically treated teeth.

Materials And Methods: A total of 60 indirect class II restorations were performed in 51 patients using Cerasmart (GC Dental Products Europe, Leuven, Belgium) composite, IPS e.max computer-aided design CAD (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) ceramic, and Vita Enamic (Vita Zahnfabrik, Bad Sackingen, Germany) hybrid blocks. All the restored teeth had root canal treatment. The restorations were evaluated using modified FDI criteria for 30 months.

Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis analysis and Friedman two-way analysis of variance.

Results: A total of 53 restorations of the 60 restorations could be followed up at the end of 30 months. No statistically significant difference was observed between the groups after 30 months in terms of all criteria evaluated ( > 0.05).

Conclusion: Composite, ceramic, and hybrid blocks showed successful clinical performance in endodontically treated posterior teeth with large material loss.

Citing Articles

Exploring the Properties and Indications of Chairside CAD/CAM Materials in Restorative Dentistry.

Ille C, Jivanescu A, Pop D, Stoica E, Flueras R, Talpos-Niculescu I J Funct Biomater. 2025; 16(2).

PMID: 39997580 PMC: 11856138. DOI: 10.3390/jfb16020046.

The reliability and validity of the restoration difficulty evaluation system tool for assessing the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A pilot study.

Mahajan A, Nawal R, Talwar S, Verma M, Yadav S J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025; 28(1):21-26.

PMID: 39974682 PMC: 11835354. DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_598_24.

An comparison of the fracture resistance of MOD inlay restorations using different lithium disilicates.

Mulla M, Singh S, Kulkarni G, Podar R, Lokhande A, Shetty R J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025; 27(11):1187-1192.

PMID: 39777398 PMC: 11702871. DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_635_24.

Clinical performance and wear resistance of milled resin composite material versus direct nanohybrid bulk-fill resin composite in the restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth over 1 year: Randomized clinical trial.

Elhaddad E, Mohsen M, Mohamed D J Conserv Dent Endod. 2024; 27(4):400-407.

PMID: 38779211 PMC: 11108410. DOI: 10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_46_24.

References

Karale R, Prathima B, Prashanth B, Shivaranjan N, Jain N . The effect of bulk-fill composites: Activa and Smart Dentin Replacement on cuspal deflection in endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs. J Conserv Dent. 2022; 25(4):375-379. PMC: 9520647. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_53_22. View

Davidowitz G, Kotick P . The use of CAD/CAM in dentistry. Dent Clin North Am. 2011; 55(3):559-70, ix. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2011.02.011. View

Della Bona A, Corazza P, Zhang Y . Characterization of a polymer-infiltrated ceramic-network material. Dent Mater. 2014; 30(5):564-9. PMC: 4651623. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2014.02.019. View

Touati B . The evolution of aesthetic restorative materials for inlays and onlays: a review. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1996; 8(7):657-66; quiz 668. View

Altier M, Erol F, Yildirim G, Dalkilic E . Fracture resistance and failure modes of lithium disilicate or composite endocrowns. Niger J Clin Pract. 2018; 21(7):821-826. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_175_17. View

Dietschi D, De Siebenthal G, Holz J . Influence of the restorative technique and new adhesives on the dentin marginal seal and adaptation of resin composite Class II restorations: an in vitro evaluation. Quintessence Int. 1995; 26(10):717-27. View

Aravamudhan K, Rakowski D, Fan P . Variation of depth of cure and intensity with distance using LED curing lights. Dent Mater. 2006; 22(11):988-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.11.031. View

DArcangelo C, Vanini L . Effect of three surface treatments on the adhesive properties of indirect composite restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007; 9(3):319-26. View

Ishii N, Maseki T, Nara Y . Bonding state of metal-free CAD/CAM onlay restoration after cyclic loading with and without immediate dentin sealing. Dent Mater J. 2017; 36(3):357-367. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-289. View

10.

Gresnigt M, Ozcan M, van den Houten M, Schipper L, Cune M . Fracture strength, failure type and Weibull characteristics of lithium disilicate and multiphase resin composite endocrowns under axial and lateral forces. Dent Mater. 2016; 32(5):607-14. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.01.004. View

11.

Boushell L, Ritter A . Ceramic inlays: a case presentation and lessons learned from the literature. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2009; 21(2):77-87. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2009.00236.x. View

12.

Vargas M, Haselton D . Current status of luting agents for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81(2):135-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70240-4. View

13.

Hickel R, Peschke A, Tyas M, Mjor I, Bayne S, Peters M . FDI World Dental Federation: clinical criteria for the evaluation of direct and indirect restorations-update and clinical examples. Clin Oral Investig. 2010; 14(4):349-66. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0432-8. View

14.

Kim J, Shin W . How to do random allocation (randomization). Clin Orthop Surg. 2014; 6(1):103-9. PMC: 3942596. DOI: 10.4055/cios.2014.6.1.103. View

15.

Ozakar-Ilday N, Zorba Y, Yildiz M, Erdem V, Seven N, Demirbuga S . Three-year clinical performance of two indirect composite inlays compared to direct composite restorations. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2013; 18(3):e521-8. PMC: 3668883. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.18491. View

16.

Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A . Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008; 39(2):117-29. View

17.

Awada A, Nathanson D . Mechanical properties of resin-ceramic CAD/CAM restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2015; 114(4):587-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.04.016. View

18.

Ng Y, Mann V, Rahbaran S, Lewsey J, Gulabivala K . Outcome of primary root canal treatment: systematic review of the literature -- Part 2. Influence of clinical factors. Int Endod J. 2007; 41(1):6-31. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01323.x. View

19.

Collares K, Correa M, Laske M, Kramer E, Reiss B, Moraes R . A practice-based research network on the survival of ceramic inlay/onlay restorations. Dent Mater. 2016; 32(5):687-94. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2016.02.006. View

20.

Manhart J, Chen H, Hamm G, Hickel R . Buonocore Memorial Lecture. Review of the clinical survival of direct and indirect restorations in posterior teeth of the permanent dentition. Oper Dent. 2004; 29(5):481-508. View