EC Dental Science

Case Report Volume 22 Issue 11 - 2023

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Fracture Strength, Survival, and Success Rates of Endocrown Versus Conventional Restorations of Endodontically-Treated Teeth

Salah A Yousief1,2*, Saad Mohamednagib Alfergani3, Yazeed Saeed Khalofa4, Ibraheem Abdulrahman Aljomai5, Abdullah Hassen Jameel6, Raed Ahmed Alzahrani7 and Ashraf Saleh Baboor8

1Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
2Department of Crown and Bridge, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Al Azhar University, Assiut, Egypt
3MDSc in Endodontics, Ministry of Health, KSA
4Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry, Ministry of Health, KSA
5Saudi Board in Family Dentistry, Ministry of Health, KSA
6Saudi Board in Periodontics, Ministry of Health, KSA
7MSc in Endodontics, Ministry of Health, KSA
8Saudi Board in Periodontics, Ministry of Health, KSA

*Corresponding Author: Salah A Yousief, Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Dar Al Uloom University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia and Department of Crown and Bridge, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Al Azhar University, Assiut, Egypt.
Received: October 20, 2023; Published: November 07, 2023

Objectives: Rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth with extensive coronal damage is nevertheless difficult due in part to the weakening of the dentin tissues that surround pulp removal. There is a lack of data on the long-term survival and success of endocrowns in comparison to conventional crowns. To compare the fracture strength, survival rate, and success rate of endocrowns to those of conventional restoration is the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis.

Data: We included all studies comparing endocrowns and conventional restoration in endodontically treated teeth whether premolar or molar ones. We included invitro studies, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), case-control, and cohort studies. We excluded studies that don’t compare endocrowns to conventional restorations, in addition to reviews, case reports, and case series. We also excluded finite element analysis studies.

Sources: We searched the three databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus) for articles investigating our aim.

Study Selection: Two authors working independently carried out the process of title-abstract screening followed by full-text screening to include the eligible articles. Any difference was resolved between them and if the conflict persists, a senior author was in charge of it.

Results: Endocrown group was associated with a higher fracture strength compared to the conventional restoration group with a mean difference of 145.7 Newton, 95%CI: (23.86, 267.54, p = 0.02). The overall survival rate for endocrowns was 83.6% (88% for molars, and 75% for molars), while that of the conventional restoration was 80% (87% for molars, and 71.4% for premolars). However, no significant difference was obtained between both groups with an overall OR of 1.39, 95%CI: (0.76, 2.55, p = 0.29). The overall success rate for endocrowns was 81.4% (82.2% for molars, and 75% for premolars), while that of conventional restorations was 86% (83.2% for molars, and 95% for premolars) with no statistically significant difference between both groups with overall OR of 0.8, 95%CI: (0.43, 1.48, p = 0.48).

Conclusion: Endocrowns are associated with better fracture strength when compared to conventional restorations in endodontically treated molar and premolar teeth. No difference between both methods regarding survival and success rates. However, more prospective RCTs with large sample sizes validate the current findings.

 Keywords: Conventional; Endocrown; Endodontics; Survival; Fracture

  1. Zhu Z., et al. “Effect of Post Placement on the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics5 (2015): 475-483.
  2. Sarkis-Onofre R., et al. “Cast metal vs. glass fibre posts: a randomized controlled trial with up to 3 years of follow up”. Journal of Dentistry5 (2014): 582-587.
  3. Lazari PC., et al. “Stress distribution on dentin-cement-post interface varying root canal and glass fiber post diameters. A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on micro-CT data”. Journal of Applied Oral Science6 (2013): 511-517.
  4. Roscoe MG., et al. “Influence of alveolar bone loss, post type, and ferrule presence on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary canines: strain measurement and stress distribution”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry2 (2013): 116-126.
  5. Otto T. “Computer-aided direct all-ceramic crowns: preliminary 1-year results of a prospective clinical study”. International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry5 (2004): 446-455.
  6. Zarone F., et al. “Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis”. Dental Materials11 (2006): 1035-1044.
  7. Biacchi GR., et al. “The endocrown: an alternative approach for restoring extensively damaged molars”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry6 (2013): 383-390.
  8. Bindl A and Mörmann WH. “Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed Cerec endo-crowns after 2 years--preliminary results”. The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry3 (1999): 255-265.
  9. El-Damanhoury HM., et al. “Fracture resistance and microleakage of endocrowns utilizing three CAD-CAM blocks”. Operative Dentistry2 (2015): 201-210.
  10. Chang C-Y., et al. “Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns”. Journal of Dental Sciences3 (2009): 110-117.
  11. Ramírez-Sebastià A., et al. “Adhesive restoration of anterior endodontically treated teeth: influence of post length on fracture strength”. Clinical Oral Investigations2 (2014): 545-554.
  12. Moher D., et al. “Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement”. PLOS Medicine7 (2009): e1000097.
  13. Sterne JAC., et al. “RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials”. British Medical Journal 366 (2019): l4898.
  14. Sarkis-Onofre R., et al. “The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies”. Operative Dentistry1 (2014): E31-E44.
  15. Alshibri S and Elguindy J. “Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Lithium Disilicate Crowns Retained with Fiber Posts Compared to Lithium Disilicate and Cerasmart Endocrowns: In Vitro Study”. Dentistry (2017): 7.
  16. Bindl A., et al. “Survival of ceramic computer-aided design/manufacturing crowns bonded to preparations with reduced macroretention geometry”. The International Journal of Prosthodontics3 (2005): 219-224.
  17. El Ghoul W., et al. “Fracture resistance and failure modes of endocrowns manufactured with different CAD/CAM materials under axial and lateral loading”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry4 (2019): 378-387.
  18. Rocca GT., et al. “Restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated premolars: The influence of the endo-core length on marginal integrity and fatigue resistance of lithium disilicate CAD-CAM ceramic endocrowns”. Journal of Dentistry 68 (2018): 41-50.
  19. Roggendorf MJ., et al. “Seven-year clinical performance of CEREC-2 all-ceramic CAD/CAM restorations placed within deeply destroyed teeth”. Clinical Oral Investigations5 (2012): 1413-1424.
  20. Sedrez-Porto JA., et al. “Endocrown restorations: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. Journal of Dentistry 52 (2016): 8-14.
  21. Morimoto S., et al. “Two-Year Survival of Ceramic Endocrowns and Partial Coverage Ceramic Restorations with Fiber Post: A 2-Year Double-Blind Randomized Clinical Trial”. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry4 (2022): 252-261.
  22. Seddik T and Derelioglu S. “Effect of Endocrowns on Fracture Strength and Microleakage of Endodontically Treated Primary Molar Teeth”. Journal of Advanced Oral Research2 (2019): 113-119.
  23. Fildisi MA and Eliguzeloglu Dalkilic E. “The effect of fiber insertion on fracture strength and fracture modes in endocrown and overlay restorations”. Microscopy Research and Technique5 (2022): 1799-1807.
  24. Belleflamme MM., et al. “No post-no core approach to restore severely damaged posterior teeth: An up to 10-year retrospective study of documented endocrown cases”. Journal of Dentistry 63 (2017): 1-7.
  25. De Kuijper M., et al. “Fracture Strength of Various Types of Large Direct Composite and Indirect Glass Ceramic Restorations”. Operative Dentistry4 (2019): 433-442.
  26. Krance A., et al. “Fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns based on different preparation designs for restoring endodontically treated molars”. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry1 (2019): 72-79.
  27. Hofsteenge JW and Gresnigt M. “The Influence of Dentin Wall Thickness and Adhesive Surface in Post and Core Crown and Endocrown Restorations on Central and Lateral Incisors”. Operative Dentistry1 (2021): 75-86.
  28. Amjadi M., et al. “Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance and failure modes in endodontically treated molars restored with zirconia endocrown and onlays”. Folia Medica2 (2023): 260-268.
  29. Bozkurt DA., et al. “Comparison of the pull-out bond strength of endodontically treated anterior teeth with monolithic zirconia endocrown and post-and-core crown restorations”. Journal of Oral Science1 (2023): 1-5.
  30. Ahmed MAA., et al. “Fracture resistance of maxillary premolars restored with different endocrown designs and materials after artificial ageing”. Journal of Prosthodontic Research1 (2022): 141-150.
  31. Magne P., et al. “Influence of no-ferrule and no-post buildup design on the fatigue resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with resin nanoceramic CAD/CAM crowns”. Operative Dentistry6 (2014): 595-602.
  32. Guo J., et al. “A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber post-core retained conventional crowns”. Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics6 (2016): 489-493.
  33. Bankoğlu Güngör M., et al. “Fracture strength of CAD/CAM fabricated lithium disilicate and resin nano ceramic restorations used for endodontically treated teeth”. Dental Materials Journal2 (2017): 135-141.
  34. Forberger N and Göhring TN. “Influence of the type of post and core on in vitro marginal continuity, fracture resistance, and fracture mode of lithia disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry4 (2008): 264-273.
  35. Kassis C., et al. “Effect of Inlays, Onlays and Endocrown Cavity Design Preparation on Fracture Resistance and Fracture Mode of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study”. Journal of Prosthodontics7 (2021): 625-631.
  36. Lin CL., et al. “Evaluation of failure risks in ceramic restorations for endodontically treated premolar with MOD preparation”. Dental Materials5 (2011): 431-438.
  37. Skupien JA., et al. “Ferrule Effect: A Meta-analysis”. JDR Clinical and Translational Research1 (2016): 31-39.
  38. Jotkowitz A and Samet N. “Rethinking ferrule--a new approach to an old dilemma”. British Dental Journal1 (2010): 25-33.
  39. Motta AB., et al. “Influence of substructure design and occlusal reduction on the stress distribution in metal ceramic complete crowns: 3D finite element analysis”. Journal of Prosthodontics5 (2014): 381-389.
  40. Tay FR and Pashley DH. “Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal”. The Journal of Endodontics4 (2007): 391-398.
  41. Al-Dabbagh RA. “Survival and success of endocrowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis”. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry3 (2021): 415.e1-.e9.
  42. Abdel‐Aziz MS and Abo-Elmagd AAA. Effect Of Endocrowns and Glass Fiber Post-Retained Crowns on The Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars (2015).
  43. Suksaphar W., et al. “Survival rates against fracture of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with full-coverage crowns or resin composite restorations: a systematic review”. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics3 (2017): 157-167.
  44. Tang W., et al. “Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth”. The Journal of Endodontics4 (2010): 609-617.
  45. Zhu J., et al. “Influence of remaining tooth structure and restorative material type on stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary premolars: A finite element analysis”. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry5 (2017): 646-655.
  46. Otto T and Mörmann WH. “Clinical performance of chairside CAD/CAM feldspathic ceramic posterior shoulder crowns and endocrowns up to 12 years”. International Journal of Computerized Dentistry2 (2015): 147-161.

Salah A Yousief., et al. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on the Fracture Strength, Survival, and Success Rates of Endocrown Versus Conventional Restorations of Endodontically-Treated Teeth. EC Dental Science 22.11 (2023): 01-10.