CAD-FE modeling and analysis of class II restorations incorporating resin-composite, glass ionomer and glass ceramic materials

Publication date: Available online 8 November 2017
Source:Dental Materials
Author(s): Pietro Ausiello, Stefano Ciaramella, Massimo Martorelli, Antonio Lanzotti, Antonio Gloria, David C. Watts
ObjectivesTo investigate the influence of specific resin-composite, glass ceramic and glass ionomer cement (GIC) material combinations in a "multi-layer" technique to replace enamel and dentin in class II mesio-occlusal-distal (MOD) dental restorations using 3D-Finite Element Analysis (FEA).MethodsFour 3D-FE models (A–D) of teeth, adhesively restored with different filling materials, were created and analyzed in comparison with a 3D model (E) of a sound lower molar. Models A, B & C had "multilayer" constructions, consisting of three layers: adhesive, dentin replacement and enamel replacement.Model A: had a low modulus (8GPa) composite replacing dentin and a higher modulus (12GPa) composite replacing enamel.Model B: had a GI cement replacing dentin and a higher modulus (12GPa) composite replacing enamel.Model C: had a low modulus (8GPa) composite replacing dentin and a very high modulus (70GPa) inlay replacing enamel.Model D: had a lithium disilicate inlay replacing both dentin and enamel with a luting cement base-layer.Polymerization shrinkage effects were simulated and a load of 600N was applied. All the materials were assumed to behave elastically throughout the entire deformation.ResultsModel A showed the highest stress distribution along all the adhesive interfaces of the shrinking resin-based materials with a critical condition and failure risk marginally and internally. Model D, by contrast, showed a more favorable performance than either of the multilayer groups (A–C). Stress and displacement plots showed an elastic response similar to that obtained for the sound tooth model. Model B and Model C performed according to their bilayer material properties. The use of a non-shrink dentin component simulating a GIC clearly affected the shrinkage stress at the basis of the Model B; while the bulk resin composite having a 12GPa Young's modulus and linear polymerization shrinkage of 1% strongly influenced the biomechanical response in the bucco-lingual direction.SignificanceDirect resin-based composite materials applied in multilayer techniques to large class II cavities, with or without shrinking dentin layers, produced adverse FEA stress distributions and displacements. An indirect lithium disilicate inlay used to replace lost dentin and enamel in posterior restored teeth generated lower stress levels, within the limits of the elastic FEA model.



from ! ORL Sfakianakis via paythelady.61 on Inoreader http://ift.tt/2yJ1VmN
via IFTTT