Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Current Oral Health Reports
Published in: Current Oral Health Reports 4/2015

01-12-2015 | Dental Restorative Materials (F Ozer, Section Editor)

Direct Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: a Brief Summary of Materials and Techniques

Authors: Sema Belli, Oguz Eraslan, Gurcan Eskitascioglu

Published in: Current Oral Health Reports | Issue 4/2015

Login to get access

Abstract

The restoration of endodontically treated teeth remains a challenge. The success of the final restoration depends mostly on the structure of the remaining tooth. Although the materials and procedures available today result in successful restoration of root-filled teeth via direct (in situ) techniques, one should first consider the amount of the coronal tooth structure remaining as well as the functional requirements. Restoration using direct composite resin is a good treatment option, but polymerization shrinkage is one of the major limitations of this material. The application of various base materials under the composite resin is an effective method. Covering the cusps with the restorative material is another option to save the remaining tooth structure; however, some materials may be unsuitable in stress-bearing areas. Materials applied to the orifice of a root canal also have a major effect on tooth biomechanics. This article reviews the direct restoration of endodontically treated teeth and discusses the current materials and techniques used for this purpose.
Literature
1.
Torabinejad M, Ung B, Kettering JD. In vitro bacterial penetration of coronally unsealed endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 1990;16:566–9.CrossRefPubMed
2.
Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994;10:105–8.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Limkangwalmongkol S, Burtscher P, Abbott PV, et al. A comparative study of the apical leakage of four root canal sealers and laterally condensed gutta-percha. J Endod. 1991;17(10):495–9.CrossRefPubMed
4.
Marshall FS, Massler M. The sealing of pulpless teeth evaluated with radioisotopes. J Dent Med. 1961;16L:172–84.
5.•
Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J. 1995;28:12–8. In this article, the authors indicate that the quality of the coronal restoration has a greater effect than that of endodontic treatment on the periradicular status. However, this study is limited in that it was based on retrospective radiographic data as well as other retrospective studies. Yet, we must acknowledge that this article challenged the rationale of endodontics, leading to more attention being paid to coronal leakage as a potential cause of endodontic failure.CrossRefPubMed
6.••
Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, et al. Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2011;37(7):895–902. This systematic review and meta-analysis was planned to re-evaluate whether the quality of a coronal restoration or the quality of a root canal filling has a greater impact on the outcome of root canal treatment. The authors concluded that the odds for healing of apical periodontitis improve with both adequate root canal treatment and adequate restorative treatment.CrossRefPubMed
7.
Heling I, Gorfil C, Slutzky H, et al. Endodontic failure caused by inadequate restorative procedures: review and treatment recommendations. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(6):674–8.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Tewari S, Tewari S. Assessment of coronal microleakage in intermediately restored endodontic access cavities. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002;93(6):716–9.CrossRefPubMed
9.
Soares CJ, Santana FR, Silva NR, et al. Influence of the endodontic treatment on mechanical properties of root dentin. J Endod. 2007;33(5):603–6.CrossRefPubMed
10.
Papa J, Cain C, Messer HH. Moisture content of vital vs endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994;10(2):91–3.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Lewinstein I, Grajower R. Root dentin hardness of endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 1981;7(9):421–2.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Randow K, Glantz PO. On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;44(5):271–7.CrossRefPubMed
13.
14.
Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989;15(11):512–6.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Patel A, Gutteridge DL. An in vitro investigation of cast post and partial core design. J Dent. 1996;24:281–7.CrossRefPubMed
16.
Marchi GM, Mitsui FH, Cavalcanti AN. Effect of remaining dentine structure and thermal-mechanical aging on the fracture resistance of bovine roots with different post and core systems. Int Endod J. 2008;41(11):969–76.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Veríssimo C, Simamoto Júnior PC, Soares CJ, et al. Effect of the crown, post, and remaining coronal dentin on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent. 2014;111(3):234–46.CrossRefPubMed
18.
Soares PV, Santos-Filho PC, Martins LR, et al. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99:30–7.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Ribeiro FC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Marchesan MA, et al. Influence of different endodontic filling materials on root fracture susceptibility. J Dent. 2008;36(1):69–73.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Hirano Y, Aoba T. Computer-assisted reconstruction of enamel fissures and carious lesions of human premolars. J Dent Res. 1995;74(5):1200–5.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Kiessling S, et al. Risk factors for failure of glass fiber-reinforced composite post restorations: a prospective observational clinical study. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005;113(6):519–24.CrossRefPubMed
22.
Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, et al. Long-term retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent. 2007;20(5):287–91.PubMed
23.
Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004;30:289–301.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Panitvisai P, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1995;21(2):57–61.CrossRefPubMed
25.
Rao MS, Shameem A, Nair R, et al. Comparison of the remaining dentin thickness in the root after hand and four rotary instrumentation techniques: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14(4):712–7.PubMed
26.
Lin CL, Chang CH, Ko CC. Multifactorial analysis of an MOD restored human premolar using auto-mesh finite element approach. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:576–85.CrossRefPubMed
27.
Mondelli RF, Barbosa WF, Mondelli J. Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restored with amalgam with and without cusp coverage. Am J Dent. 1998;11:181–4.PubMed
28.
Larson TD, Douglas WH, Geistfeld RE. Effect of prepared cavities on the strength of teeth. Oper Dent. 1981;6:2–5.PubMed
29.
Glasspoole EA, Erickson RL, Davidson CL. Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of glass ionomers to enamel. Dent Mater. 2002;18:454–62.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Mount GJ. Buonocore memorial lecture. Glass-ionomer cements: past, present and future. Oper Dent. 1994;19:82–90.PubMed
31.
Naasan MA, Watson TF. Conventional glass ionomers as posterior restorations. A status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 1998;11:36–45.PubMed
32.
Ilie N, Hickel R, Valceanu AS, et al. Fracture toughness of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig. 2012;16(2):489–98.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Nguyen K, Sathorn C, Wong R, et al. Clinical performance of laminate and non-laminate resin composite restorations: a systematic review. Aust Dent J. 2014. doi:10.​1111/​adj.​12252. 17.PubMed
34.
Qvist V, Laurberg L, Poulsen A, et al. Class II restorations in primary teeth: 7 years study on three resin-modified glass ionomer cements and a compomer. Eur J Oral Sci. 2004;112(2):188–96.CrossRefPubMed
35.
Yap AU, Chung SM, Chow WS, et al. Fracture resistance of compomer and composite restoratives. Oper Dent. 2004;29(1):29–34.PubMed
36.
Gurgan S, Kutuk ZB, Ergin E, et al. Four-years randomized clinical trial to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system. Oper Dent. 2015;40(2):134–43.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Ahrari F, Nojoomian M, Moosavi H. Clinical evaluation of bonded amalgam restorations in endodontically treated premolar teeth: a 1 year evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2010;11(5):009–16.PubMed
38.
Mondelli J, Steagall L, Ishikiriama A, et al. Fracture strength of human teeth with cavity preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1980;43:419–22.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Pradeep P, Kumar VS, Bantwal SR, et al. Fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars: an in-vitro evaluation. J Int Oral Health. 2013;5(6):9–17.PubMedCentralPubMed
40.
Linn J, Messer HH. Effect of restorative procedures on the strength of endodontically treated molars. J Endod. 1994;20:479–85.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Seo DG, Yi YA, Shin SJ, et al. Analysis of factors associated with cracked teeth. J Endod. 2012;38(3):288–92.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Geiger S, Paikin L, Gorfil C, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with combined composite-amalgam restorations. Quintessence Int. 2008;39(2):e58–62.PubMed
43.
Plasmen PJ, Reukers EA. Esthetic veneering of amalgam restorations with composite resin—combining the best of both worlds? Oper Dent. 1993;18(2):66–71.
44.
Plotino G, Buono L, Grande NM, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with extensive composite resin restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2008;99(3):225–32.CrossRefPubMed
45.
Mannocci F, Bertelli E, Sherriff M, et al. Three-years clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. Int Endod J. 2009;42(5):401–5.CrossRefPubMed
46.
Dammaschke T, Nykiel K, Sagheri D, et al. Influence of coronal restorations on the fracture resistance of root canal-treated premolar and molar teeth: a retrospective study. Aust Endod J. 2013;39(2):48–56.CrossRefPubMed
47.
Ferracane JL. Developing a more complete understanding of stresses produced in dental composites during polymerization. Dent Mater. 2005;21:36–42.CrossRefPubMed
48.
Lee MR, Cho BH, Son HH, et al. Influence of cavity dimension and restoration methods on the cusp deflection of premolars in composite restoration. Dent Mater. 2007;23:288–95.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Alomari QD, Reinhardt JW, Boyer DB. Effect of liners on cusp deflection and gap formation in composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2001;26(4):406–11.PubMed
50.
Taha NA, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection, strain and microleakage of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with direct resin composites. J Dent. 2009;37(9):724–30.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Braga RR, Ferracane JL. Alternatives in polymerization contraction stress management. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2004;15:176–84.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Kwon Y, Ferracane J, Lee IB. Effect of layering methods, composite type, and flowable liner on the polymerization shrinkage stress of light cured composites. Dent Mater. 2012;28(7):801–9.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21:68–74.CrossRefPubMed
54.
Park J, Chang J, Ferracane J, et al. How should composite be layered to reduce shrinkage stress: incremental or bulk filling? Dent Mater. 2008;24(11):1501–5.CrossRefPubMed
55.
Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, et al. Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res. 1993;72(10):1434–42.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Kemp-Scholte CM, Davidson CL. Marginal integrity related to bond strength and strain capacity of composite resin restorative systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;64:658–64.CrossRefPubMed
57.
Uno S, Finger WJ. Function of the hybrid zone as a stress-absorbing layer in resin-dentin bonding. Quintessence Int. 1995;26(10):733–8.PubMed
58.
Eliguzeloglu E, Eraslan O, Omurlu H, et al. Effect of hybrid layer and thickness on stress distribution of cervical wedge-shaped restorations. Eur J Dent. 2010;4(2):160–5.PubMedCentralPubMed
59.
Eliguzeloglu E, Eraslan O, Omurlu H, et al. The effect of cavity shape and hybrid layer on the stress distribution of cervical composite restorations. Eur J Dent. 2011;5(2):180–5.PubMedCentralPubMed
60.
Belli S, Eskitaşcioglu G, Eraslan O, et al. Effect of hybrid layer on stress distribution in a premolar tooth restored with composite or ceramic inlay: an FEM study. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005;74(2):665–8.CrossRefPubMed
61.
Van Meerbeek B, Inokoshi S, Braem M, et al. Morphological aspects of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone with different dentin adhesive systems. J Dent Res. 1992;71(8):1530–40.CrossRefPubMed
62.
Belli S, Inokoshi S, Ozer F, et al. The effect of additional enamel etching and a flowable composite to the interfacial integrity of class II adhesive composite restorations. Oper Dent. 2001;26(1):70–5.PubMed
63.
Liveira LC, Duarte Jr S, Araujo CA, et al. Effect of low-elastic modulus liner and base as stress-absorbing layer in composite resin restorations. Dent Mater. 2010;26(3):e159–69.CrossRef
64.
Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of acrylic resin polymers reinforced with unidirectional and woven glass fibers. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(3):318–26.CrossRefPubMed
65.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, et al. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J. 2005;38(2):73–80.CrossRefPubMed
66.
Belli S, Erdemir A, Yildirim C. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fibre in root-filled teeth: comparison of two restoration techniques. Int Endod J. 2006;39(2):136–42.CrossRefPubMed
67.
Belli S, Orucoglu H, Yildirim C, et al. The effect of fiber placement or flowable resin lining on microleakage in class II adhesive restorations. J Adhes Dent. 2007;9(2):175–81.PubMed
68.
Belli S, Dönmez N, Eskitaşcioğlu G. The effect of c-factor and flowable resin or fiber use at the interface on microtensile bond strength to dentin. J Adhes Dent. 2006;8(4):247–53.PubMed
69.
Shafiei F, Tavangar MS, Ghahramani Y, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored by silorane-based composite with or without fiber or nano-ionomer. J Adv Prosthodont. 2014;6(3):200–6.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
70.
Frese C, Decker C, Rebholz J, et al. Original and repair bond strength of fiber-reinforced composites in vitro. Dent Mater. 2014;30(4):456–62.CrossRefPubMed
71.
Wolff D, Schach C, Kraus T, et al. Fiber-reinforced composite fixed dental prostheses: a retrospective clinical examination. J Adhes Dent. 2011;13:187–94.PubMed
72.
Akman S, Akman M, Eskitascioglu G, et al. Influence of several fibre-reinforced composite restoration techniques on cusp movement and fracture strength of molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2011;44(5):407–15.CrossRefPubMed
73.
Mondelli RF, Ishikiriama SK, de Oliveira FO, et al. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci. 2009;17(3):161–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
74.
Xie KX, Wang XY, Gao XJ, et al. Fracture resistance of root filled premolar teeth restored with direct composite resin with or without cusp coverage. Int Endod J. 2012;45(6):524–9.CrossRefPubMed
75.
Torabzadeh H, Ghasemi A, Dabestani A, et al. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect composite restorations. J Dent (Tehran). 2013;10(5):417–25.
76.
Krejci I, Duc O, Dietschi D, et al. Marginal adaptation, retention and fracture resistance of adhesive composite restorations on devital teeth with and without posts. Oper Dent. 2003;28:127–35.PubMed
77.
Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, et al. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod. 2009;35:1428–32.CrossRefPubMed
78.
Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, et al. The effect of the post length and cusp coverage on the cycling and static load of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Clin Oral Investig. 2011;15:923–9.CrossRefPubMed
79.
Kantardzić I, Vasiljević D, Blazić L, et al. Influence of cavity design preparation on stress values in maxillary premolar: a finite element analysis. Croat Med J. 2012;53(6):568–76.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
80.
Shafiei F, Memarpour M, Karimi F. Fracture resistance of cuspal coverage of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with combined composite-amalgam compared to other techniques. Oper Dent. 2011;36(4):439–47.CrossRefPubMed
81.
Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Burke FJ, et al. The influence of short and medium-term water immersion on the hydrolytic stability of novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater. 2005;21(9):852–63.CrossRefPubMed
82.
Lien W, Vandewalle KS. Physical properties of a new silorane-based restorative system. Dent Mater. 2010;26(4):337–44.CrossRefPubMed
83.
Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27:17–28.CrossRefPubMed
84.
Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, et al. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012;40:500–5.CrossRefPubMed
85.
Fleming GJ, Awan M, Cooper PR, et al. The potential of a resin-based composite to be cured to a 4 mm depth. Dent Mater. 2008;24:522–9.CrossRefPubMed
86.
Manhart J, Chen HY, Hickel R. Clinical evaluation of the posterior composite Quixfil in class I and II cavities: 4 years follow-up of a randomized controlled trial. J Adhes Dent. 2010;12(3):237–43.PubMed
87.
Van Dijken JW, Pallesen U. A randomized controlled three years evaluation of “bulk-filled” posterior resin restorations based on stress decreasing resin technology. Dent Mater. 2014;30(9):e245–51.CrossRefPubMed
88.
Jin X, Bertrand S, Hammesfahr PD. New radically polymerizable resins with remarkably low curing stress. J Dent Res. 2009;88:1651.
89.
Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigations on a methacrylate-based flowable composite based on the SDR™ technology. Dent Mater. 2011;27(4):348–55.CrossRefPubMed
90.
Garoushi SK, Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, et al. Load bearing capacity of fiber-reinforced and particulate filler composite resin combination. J Dent. 2006;34:179–84.CrossRefPubMed
91.
Garoushi S, Tanner J, Vallittu P, et al. Preliminary clinical evaluation of short fiber-reinforced composite resin in posterior teeth: 12 months report. Open Dent J. 2012;6:41–5.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
92.
Yasa B, Arslan H, Yasa E, et al. Effect of novel restorative materials and retention slots on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth. Acta Odontol Scand. 2015;18:1–7.CrossRef
93.
Aboobaker S, Nair BG, Gopal R, et al. Effect of intra-orifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth—an ex-vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(2):ZC17–20.PubMedCentralPubMed
94.
Baba NZ, Goodacre CJ. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: contemporary concepts and future perspectives. Endod Top. 2014;31(1):68–83.CrossRef
95.
96.
Belli S, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, et al. Monoblocks in root canals: a finite elemental stress analysis study. Int Endod J. 2011;44(9):817–26.CrossRefPubMed
97.
Milani AS, Rahimi S, Borna Z, et al. Fracture resistance of immature teeth filled with mineral trioxide aggregate or calcium-enriched mixture cement: an ex vivo study. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2012;9(3):299–304.
98.
Kaup M, Dammann CH, Schäfer E, et al. Shear bond strength of Biodentine, ProRoot MTA, glass ionomer cement and composite resin on human dentine ex vivo. Head Face Med. 2015;11:14.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMed
99.
Aggarwal V, Singla M, Yadav S, et al. Marginal adaptation evaluation of Biodentine and MTA plus in “open sandwich” class II restorations. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2015;27(3):167–75.CrossRefPubMed
100.
Hashem DF, Foxton R, Manoharan A, et al. The physical characteristics of resin composite-calcium silicate interface as part of a layered/laminate adhesive restoration. Dent Mater. 2014;30(3):343–9.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Direct Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: a Brief Summary of Materials and Techniques
Authors
Sema Belli
Oguz Eraslan
Gurcan Eskitascioglu
Publication date
01-12-2015
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Current Oral Health Reports / Issue 4/2015
Electronic ISSN: 2196-3002
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40496-015-0068-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2015

Current Oral Health Reports 4/2015 Go to the issue

Epidemiology (M Laine, Section Editor)

Declining Caries Trends: Are We Satisfied?

Dental Restorative Materials (F Ozer Section Editor)

Long-Term Durability of Dental Adhesives

Stem-cell Biology for Tooth and Periodontal Regeneration (M Bartold, Section Editor)

Is There a Role for Neural Crest Stem Cells in Periodontal Regeneration?

Stem-cell Biology for Tooth and Periodontal Regeneration (M Bartold, Section Editor)

Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells and Periodontal Regeneration

Epidemiology (M Laine, Section Editor)

Oral Mucositis Induced By Anticancer Therapies

Stem-cell Biology for Tooth and Periodontal Regeneration (M Bartold, Section Editor)

Periodontal Ligament Stem Cells for Periodontal Regeneration