Zenita Aisah Rahmayanti, Dudi Aripin, Anna Muryani, Yolanda Yolanda, Hendra Dian Adhita Dharsono, Sandro Mihradi, Satrio Wicaksono
Purpose: This research aimed to describe the stress distribution of an endodontically treated tooth with a mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity restored with direct composite reinforced with polyethylene and e-glass ribbon fiber.
Methods: This research was a descriptive study using the finite element method. A 3D model of the mandibular first molar solid after endodontic treatment with class II MOD preparation was prepared using Solidworks software. Finite element simulation was carried out using Abaqus software. In the first simulation, 180 N force was applied (vertically 90° perpendicular to the occlusal surface) at four points of loading: the tip of the mesiobuccal and distobuccal cusp, central fossa, and distal marginal ridge. For the second simulation, a 100 N force was applied at a 45° lateral angle to the occlusal surface at two loading points: the lingual slope of the mesiobuccal and distobuccal cusp.
Results: This study showed that the stress concentration was located in the occlusal pit and fissure, CEJ distal area, bifurcation in dentin, and the 1/3 cervical area of root dentin. The stress value generated after vertical and lateral force did not exceed the tooth and restoration's compressive and tensile strength value. The failure occurred at the interface of enamel and composite near the loading point area due to vertical load, both on polyethylene and e-glass fiber ribbon-reinforced composite restoration. Stress distribution of an endodontically treated tooth with a MOD cavity restored with ribbon fiber-reinforced composite using the finite element method showed that the highest stress concentration occurred on the surface close to the loading point, in narrow, concave, and sharp areas, and more apically for endodontically treated teeth.
Conclusion: Neither the tooth nor restoration failed after vertical and horizontal loads. The interface between enamel and composite on the occlusal surface failed.
Dent Traumatol. 2008 Apr;24(2):214-9
[PMID:
18352927]
J Endod. 2015 Feb;41(2):176-81
[PMID:
25453569]
Oper Dent. 2017 May/Jun;42(3):233-243
[PMID:
28467261]
Dent Mater. 2020 Apr;36(4):527-534
[PMID:
32044045]
J Endod. 2017 Sep;43(9):1499-1504
[PMID:
28712632]
J Prosthodont. 2008 Feb;17(2):114-119
[PMID:
17971112]
Dent Mater. 2015 Nov;31(11):1312-20
[PMID:
26411645]
Int J Biomater. 2022 Feb 11;2022:6643825
[PMID:
35186088]
Int J Dent. 2023 Apr 25;2023:6159338
[PMID:
37143851]
Dent Mater J. 2008 Nov;27(6):821-6
[PMID:
19241691]
Oper Dent. 2017 Nov/Dec;42(6):646-657
[PMID:
28976843]
J Adhes Dent. 2006 Aug;8(4):247-53
[PMID:
16958290]
J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jan;17(1):27-30
[PMID:
24554856]
Aust Endod J. 2023 Dec;49(3):665-674
[PMID:
37789568]
Polymers (Basel). 2022 Apr 01;14(7):
[PMID:
35406311]
Int Endod J. 2015 Sep;48(9):850-63
[PMID:
25243348]
J Endod. 2011 Nov;37(11):1562-5
[PMID:
22000464]
Int Endod J. 2017 Oct;50(10):951-966
[PMID:
27870102]
J Dent. 2016 Nov;54:77-85
[PMID:
27664468]
J Dent. 2006 Jan;34(1):77-85
[PMID:
15979226]
Quintessence Int. 2019;50(10):772-781
[PMID:
31559397]
Oper Dent. 2007 May-Jun;32(3):298-305
[PMID:
17555183]
J Endod. 2021 Sep;47(9):1472-1480
[PMID:
34139264]
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015 Apr 01;16(4):284-90
[PMID:
26067731]
Sci Rep. 2022 Jul 25;12(1):12671
[PMID:
35879388]
Int Endod J. 2021 Nov;54(11):1974-1981
[PMID:
34378217]
Biomed Res Int. 2019 Jan 22;2019:3126931
[PMID:
30805363]