Effect of Truss Access and Artificial Truss Restoration on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Mandibular First Molars
Mahmoud Y. Abou-Elnaga, DDS, MSc
Moataz-Bellah A.M. Alkhawas, DDS, MSc, PhD
Hyeon-Cheol Kim, DDS, MS, PhD
Ashraf S. Refai, DDS, MSc, PhD
Published:March 21, 2019DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.02.007

Highlights
•
The truss access cavity preparation improved the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
•
The artificial truss restoration did not improve the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.
Abstract
Introduction
This study evaluated the effects of traditional and truss access cavity preparations in addition to artificial truss restoration on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular molars.
Methods
A total of 66 recently extracted, intact mandibular first molars were collected from patients between 20 and 45 years of age. After the preparation of a mesio-occluso-distal cavity in all teeth, the teeth were randomly grouped into the following 4 groups according to the access cavity design: traditional access cavity, artificial truss restoration, truss access cavity, and control groups. Endodontic access cavities were performed in the experimental groups according to each treatment modality followed by instrumentation, irrigation, and obturation. After composite restoration, the teeth were subjected to a vertical occlusal force until fracture occurred. The data were statistically analyzed, and the fracture patterns were evaluated.
Results
First, a 1-way analysis of variance test analysis of the fracture resistance of the experimental groups showed nonsignificant differences among groups ( P > .05). Second, the data were statistically analyzed using the Student t test to compare the fracture resistance of each experimental group with that in the control group. The control group had statistically significantly higher mean values for fracture resistance than the traditional access group and the artificial truss restoration group ( P < .05). No statistically significant difference was recorded in the fracture resistance between the control group and the truss access cavity group ( P > .05).
Conclusions
The truss access cavity preparation improved the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with mesio-occluso-distal cavities, whereas the artificial truss restoration did not improve it.

References
1.
o Shafiei F.
o Memarpour M.
o Karimi F.
Fracture resistance of cuspal coverage of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with combined composite-amalgam compared to other techniques.
Oper Dent. 2011; 36: 439-447
View in Article
o Google Scholar
2.
o Mondelli R.
o Barbosa W.
o Mondelli J.
o et al.
Fracture strength of weakened human premolars restored with amalgam with and without cusp coverage.
Am J Dent. 1998; 11: 181-184
View in Article
o PubMed
o Google Scholar
3.
o Reeh E.
o Douglas W.
o Messer H.
Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restoration technique.
J Dent Res. 1989; 68: 1540-1544
View in Article
o Scopus (140)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
4.
o Ree M.
o Schwartz R.
The endo-restorative interface: current concepts.
Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 345-374
View in Article
o Scopus (28)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
5.
o Clark
o Khademi J.
Case studies in modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation.
Dent Clin North Am. 2010; 54: 275-289
View in Article
o Scopus (46)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
6.
o Buchanan S.
Everything's changed except the anatomy.
Dent Today. 2012; 31: 104-105
View in Article
o Google Scholar
7.
o Plotino G.
o Grande N.
o Isufi A.
o et al.
Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs.
J Endod. 2017; 43: 30071-30077
View in Article
o Google Scholar
8.
o Karzoun W.
o Abdulkarim A.
o Samran A.
o Kern M.
Fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary premolars supported by a horizontal glass fiber post: an in vitro study.
J Endod. 2015; 41: 907-912
View in Article
o Scopus (15)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
9.
o Krishan R.
o Paqué F.
o Ossareh A.
o et al.
Impacts of conservative endodontic access cavity on root canal instrumentation efficacy and resistance to fracture assessed in incisors, premolars, and molars.
J Endod. 2014; 40: 1160-1166
View in Article
o Scopus (75)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
10.
o Moore B.
o Verdelis K.
o Kishen A.
o et al.
Impacts of contracted endodontic cavities on instrumentation efficacy and biomechanical responses in maxillary molars.
J Endod. 2016; 42: 1779-1783
View in Article
o Scopus (42)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
11.
o Yuan K.
o Niu C.
o Xie Q.
o et al.
Comparative evaluation of the impact of minimally invasive preparation vs. conventional straight-line preparation on tooth biomechanics: a finite element analysis.
Eur J Oral Sci. 2016; 124: 591-596
View in Article
o Scopus (18)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
12.
o Özyürek T.
o Ülker Ö.
o Demiryürek E.
o Yılmaz F.
The effects of endodontic access cavity preparation design on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth: traditional versus conservative preparation.
J Endod. 2018; 44: 800-805
View in Article
o Scopus (21)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
13.
o Silva E.
o Rover G.
o Belladonna F.
o et al.
Impact of contracted endodontic cavities on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of in vitro studies.
Clin Oral Investig. 2018; 22: 109-118
View in Article
o Scopus (20)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
14.
o Neelakantan P.
o Khan K.
o Hei Ng G.
o et al.
Does the orifice-directed dentin conservation access design debride pulp chamber and mesial root canal systems of mandibular molars similar to a traditional access design?.
J Endod. 2018; 44: 274-279
View in Article
o Scopus (16)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
15.
o Bovada C.
o Kishen A.
Contracted endodontic cavities: the foundation for less invasive alternatives in the management of apical periodontitis.
Endod Topics. 2015; 33: 169-186
View in Article
o Google Scholar
16.
o McDaniel R.
o Davis R.
o Murchison D.
o Cohen R.
Causes of failure among cuspal-coverage amalgam restorations: a clinical survey.
J Am Dent Assoc. 2000; 131: 173-177
View in Article
o Scopus (23)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
17.
o Porter A.
o Nalla R.
o Minor A.
o et al.
A transmission electron microscopy study of mineralization in age-induced transparent dentin.
Biomaterials. 2005; 26: 7650-7660
View in Article
o Scopus (73)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
18.
o Talabani R.
o Baban M.
o Mahmood M.
Age estimation using lower permanent first molars on a panoramic radiograph: a digital image analysis.
J Forensic Dent Sci. 2015; 7: 158-162
View in Article
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
19.
o Morse D.
Age-related changes of the dental pulp complex and their relationship to systemic aging.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 72: 721-745
View in Article
o Scopus (114)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
20.
o Rocha L.
o Sousa Neto M.
o Fidel S.
o et al.
External and internal anatomy of mandibular molars.
Braz Dent J. 1996; 7: 33-40
View in Article
o PubMed
o Google Scholar
21.
o Schwartz R.
o Robbins J.
Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review.
J Endod. 2004; 30: 289-301
View in Article
o Scopus (519)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
22.
o Tang W.
o Wu Y.
o Smales R.
Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth.
J Endod. 2010; 36: 609-617
View in Article
o Scopus (194)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
23.
o Monga P.
o Sharma V.
o Kumar S.
Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth using different coronal restorative materials: an in vitro study.
J Conserv Dent. 2009; 12: 154-159
View in Article
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
24.
o Kimmes N.
o Barkmeier W.
o Erickson R.
o Latta M.
Adhesive bond strengths to enamel and dentin using recommended and extended treatment times.
Oper Dent. 2010; 35: 112-119
View in Article
o Scopus (31)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
25.
o Kamble S.
o Kandasamy B.
o Thillaigovindan R.
o et al.
In vitro comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength of 6(th), 7(th) and 8(th) generation dentin bonding agents.
J Int Oral Health. 2015; 7: 41-43
View in Article
o Google Scholar
26.
o Plotino G.
o Grande N.
o Bedini R.
o et al.
Flexural properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin.
Dent Mater. 2007; 23: 1129-1135
View in Article
o Scopus (145)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
27.
o Giannini M.
o Soares C.
o de Carvalho R.
Ultimate tensile strength of tooth structures.
Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 322-329
View in Article
o Scopus (159)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
28.
o Sarkis-Onofre R.
o Skupien J.
o Cenci M.
o 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.
Oper Dent. 2014; 39: E31-E44
View in Article
o Scopus (108)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
29.
o Daleprane B.
o Pereira C.
o Bueno A.
o et al.
Bond strength of fiber posts to the root canal: effects of anatomic root levels and resin cements.
J Prosthet Dent. 2016; 116: 416-424
View in Article
o Scopus (15)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
30.
o Segarra M.
o Shimada Y.
o Sadr A.
o et al.
Three-dimensional analysis of enamel crack behavior using optical coherence tomography.
J Dent Res. 2017; 96: 308-314
View in Article
o Google Scholar
31.
o Padmanabhan S.
o Balakrishnan A.
o Chu M.
o et al.
Micro-indentation fracture behavior of human enamel.
Dent Mater. 2010; 26: 100-104
View in Article
o Scopus (29)
o PubMed
o Crossref
o Google Scholar
32.
o Corsentino G.
o Pedullà E.
o Castelli L.
o et al.
Influence of access cavity preparation and remaining tooth substance on fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth.
J Endod. 2018; 44: 1416-1421
View in Article
o Scopus (23)
o PubMed
o Abstract
o Full Text
o Full Text PDF
o Google Scholar
Article Info
Publication History
Published online: March 21, 2019
Identification
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.02.007
Copyright
© 2019 American Association of Endodontists.
ScienceDirect