Influence of Adhesive Core Buildup Designs on the Resistance of Endodontically Treated Molars Restored With Lithium Disilicate CAD/CAM Crowns

Objective: To assess the influence of adhesive core buildup designs (4-mm buildup, 2-mm buildup, and no buildup/endocrown) on the fatigue resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated molar teeth restored with lithium disilicate computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) complete crowns placed with self-adhesive cement. Methods and Materials: Forty-five extracted molars were decoronated at the level of the cementoenamel junction and endodontically treated. Specimens received different Filtek Z100 adhesive core buildups (4-mm buildup; 2-mm buildup; and no buildup endocrown preparation) and were restored with Cerec 3 CAD/CAM lithium disilicate crowns (IPS e.max CAD). The intaglio surfaces of restorations (n=15) were conditioned by hydrofluoric acid etching and silane, and prepared teeth were treated with airborne-particle abrasion, followed by cementation with RelyX Unicem 2 Automix. Specimens were then subjected to cyclic isometric loading at 10 Hz, beginning with a load of 200 N (x5000 cycles), followed by stages of 400, 600, 800, 1000, 1200, and 1400 N at a maximum of 30,000 cycles each. Specimens were loaded until failure or to a maximum of 185,000 cycles. The chewing cycle was simulated by an isometric contraction (load control) applied through a 10-mm in diameter composite resin sphere (Filtek Z100). Surviving specimens were axially loaded until failure or to a maximum load of 4500 N (crosshead speed 0.5 mm/min). The failure mode was assessed, and fractures were designated as catastrophic (tooth/root fracture that would require tooth extraction) or reparable (cohesive or cohesive/adhesive fracture of restoration only). Groups were compared using the life table survival analysis (log-rank test at p=0.05). Surviving specimens were loaded to failure and compared with one-way analysis of variance. Results: The survival rates after the fatigue test were 100%, 93%, and 100% for 4-mm, 2-mm, and no buildup (endocrown), respectively and were not statistically different (only one specimen failed with a 2-mm buildup under a crown that cohesively fractured at 1,400 N). Postfatigue load to failure averaged 3181 N for 4-mm buildups (15 specimens), 3759 N for 2-mm buildups (12 specimens), and 3265 N for endocrowns (14 specimens). The 2-mm buildups were associated with higher loads to failure than endocrowns and 4-mm buildups, but no differences were found between 4-mm buildups and endocrowns (p < 0.05.) One endocrown and 2 restorations with a 2-mm buildup survived the load-to-failure test (at 4500 N). Only catastrophic fractures occurred after the load-to-failure test. Conclusions: The buildup design influenced the performance of endodontically treated molars restored with lithium disilicate CAD/CAM complete crowns placed with self-adhesive resin cement. The 2-mm buildups were associated with higher loads to failure than the endocrown and the 4-mm buildup, but all restoration designs survived far beyond the normal range of masticatory forces.