Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 6, 2025
Quasistatic Mechanical Testing for Computer-Aided Design and Manufacturing Occlusal Veneers Cemented to Milled Dentin Analog Material
Published on: December 20, 2024
Comparison of Fracture Resistance between Different Treatment Modalities of Mutilated Endodontically Treated Teeth
Diana Dghaily1, Mohammad Rayyan2, Hala Ragab3
1Department of Oral Rehabilitation Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, Beirut Arab University, Beirut, Lebanon.
Aim:
To compare fracture resistance of multiple treatment modalities intended for mutilated teeth using polyether ether ketone (PEEK) and zirconia materials.
Materials And Methods:
The study was divided into four groups according to treatment modality adopted (n = 14): fiber post (F), Nayyar core (N), endocrown (E), and Richmond crown (R). Each group was further subdivided into two groups (n = 7) according to the type of material used: zirconia (Z) and PEEK (P). Using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing, restorations were constructed from both materials following tested treatment options and manufacturer direction. Finished restorations were then tried, seated, and cemented to their corresponding acrylic teeth. All specimens were tested for fracture resistance in universal testing machine with cross head speed of 0.5 mm/min speed until failure, which was confirmed by a sudden drop in the measurements of the testing machine. Results were recorded, tabulated, and statistically analyzed. Shapiro-Wilk normality tests were considered to evaluate the normality of the data distributions. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's post hoc analysis was conducted to analyze the fracture resistance significant differences.
Results:
Descriptive statistics of the restoration material revealed statistically a higher mean value for PEEK material (3609 ± 188.1) than zirconia (2404 ± 425.6). One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between zirconia group (p < 0.0001). Regarding zirconia group statistical significance was detected between fiber post vs endocrown (p = 0.0299), fiber post vs Richmond crown (p < 0.0001), and Nayyar core vs Richmond crown (p = 0.0004). However, there was no statistically significant difference between PEEK group (P = 0.1614).
Conclusion:
Polyether ether ketone could present a reliable treatment option in endodontically treated teeth.
Clinical Significance:
Using one-piece Richmond crowns constructed of PEEK could present a viable treatment option against conventional treatment options of root canal treatment (RCT) single-rooted teeth.
