Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
ISSN 1829-006X
2025; 198–205
Shared with The Gufo

FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF ENDOCROWNS WITH DIFFERENT CAVITY DESIGN AND BASE MATERIALS IN MOLARS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

Received: 2026-04-08 · Published: 2025-10-01

Shared article.
Original title
FRACTURE RESISTANCE OF ENDOCROWNS WITH DIFFERENT CAVITY DESIGN AND BASE MATERIALS IN MOLARS: AN IN VITRO STUDY
Author
Noor Hushyar Saeed
Source journal
Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2025-10-01
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Original
https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2025.21.9-198

Abstract

Objective: The present study tested the fracture strength and fracture mode of endocrowns of mandibular molars with conventional and anatomical preparations using EverX Posterior, Smart Dentin Replacement® Plus Bulk Fill Composite, and ceramic extension (central retainer). Materials and Methods: Sixty intact recently extracted human mandibular third molars were en- dodontically treated and were assigned to two main groups according to the preparation design: standard (conventional) and modified. The samples in each group were further divided into three subgroups (n=10) according to the material used as the base: fiber-reinforced composite (EverX Posterior), bulkfill flow-able composite (SDR), and ceramic extension. Thermocycling (between 5°C and 55°C/1500 cycles) was performed on all specimens. Following which fracture load was tested using a universal testing machine and the amount of maximum load on failure (Newton) was recorded. Failure types were examined using a stereomicroscope and categorized. Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s post-hoc test for determination of statistically significant differences (p < 0.05). Results: The significant test results showcased Conventional preparation methods having a higher mean than its modified counterparts. Also, significantly between the material used Ever X poste- rior was the toughest with an average fracture resistance of 2913N, followed by SDRbeing tougher than Ceramic. For the failure modes the most common failure type was V. Between the two prep- aration methods, conventional samples had a significantly higher chance of resulting in a Type I failure. Conclusion: Conventional cavity preparation configuration produces a higher mean fracture re- sistance value it was, however, significantly higher in comparison to the modified preparations. EverX Posterior was the most resistant base close to ceramic and resistant compared with SDR. Regarding the failure modes, conventional preparations presented a higher risk of Type I failures. These results demonstrate that preparation design and material selection are each of primary im- portance in maximizing fracture resistance and determining the characteristic of failure in restora- tions.
1 / ? 100% Open in new tab Download Cite

Loading the full text…

Download Follow Updates