Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2025 Jul 9;29(8):380.
doi: 10.1007/s00784-025-06452-9.

Evaluation of cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different restorative material combinations

Affiliations

Evaluation of cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different restorative material combinations

Burak Kose et al. Clin Oral Investig. .

Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated the effects of restorations using varied materials and their combinations on cuspal deflection and fracture resistance of endodontically treated MOD cavitated maxillary premolars.

Materials and methods: 168 premolar teeth were used in the study. The teeth were divided into 14 groups (12 teeth in each group) as Positive control (Group 1), Negative control (Group 2) and Test groups (Group 3-14). MOD cavities were prepared, and then endodontic treatments were performed on teeth in all groups except the positive control group. Group 1 was the Positive control (intact teeth), and Group 2 was the Negative control (only MOD cavity and endodontic treatment). In Groups 3-7 and Groups 9-13, EverX Posterior, SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable, G-aenial Universal Injectable, Biodentine, and Fuji II LC were used as the lower layer, respectively. In Groups 3-7, Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative was used as the upper layer, while in Groups 9-13, Tetric N-Ceram was used. Group 8 was entirely restored with Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative and Group 14 with Tetric N-Ceram. Cusp deflection was measured. Fracture resistance testing was performed.

Results: Within each group, there was a statistically significant decrease in cusp deflection change values at all measured time points (p < 0.05 In the comparison between the groups, cusp deflection change values ​​were found to be significantly higher at all times in the groups where EverX Posterior was applied as the lower layer and Tetric N-Ceram was the upper layer (p < 0.05). In the groups where Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative was used, differences were seen between the groups at all times (p < 0.05).Groups 4 and 5 exhibited fracture resistance similar to the positive control group (p > 0.05). In the comparison between the groups, a significant increase in fracture resistance was observed in the groups in which only EverX Posterior and SDR Plus Bulk Fill Flowable were applied as the lower layer and the upper layer was Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: Endodontically treated teeth may exhibit different cuspal deflections and fracture resistance when restored with different materials and combinations of these materials.

Clinical relevance: When performing coronal restoration of an endodontically treated premolar teeth, it is recommended to select and use the appropriate restorative material, taking into account the position of the tooth in the mouth, cavity dimensions and the amount of material loss.

Keywords: Biodentine; Bulk fill composite resin; Cuspal deflection; Fiber-reinforced composite resin; Flowable composite; Fracture resistance; Glass ionomer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Declarations. Ethical approval: The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki. This study was approved by the Erciyes University Health Sciences Research Ethics Committee with protocol number 2020/594. Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interests.

Similar articles

References

    1. Torabzadeh H, Ghassemi A, Sanei M, Razmavar S, Sheikh-Al-Eslamian SM (2014). The influence of composite thickness with or without fibers on fracture resistance of direct restorations in endodontically treated teeth. Iran Endod J 9:215. https://doi.org/10.22037/iej.v9i3.4800
    1. Hafez ME, Abd El-Ghany AA, Taha AI, Amin A (2025) In vitro assessment of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with short fiber reinforced resin based composite and ceramic overlays. BMC Oral Health 8:211. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-025-05480-x - DOI
    1. Mergulhão V, de Mendonça L, de Albuquerque M, Braz R (2019) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with different methods. Oper Dent 44:E1–E11. https://doi.org/10.2341/17-262-L - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ploumaki A, Bilkhair A, Tuna T, Stampf S, Strub JR (2013) Success rates of prosthetic restorations on endodontically treated teeth; A systematic review after 6 years. J Oral Rehab 40:618–630. https://doi.org/10.1111/joor.12058 - DOI
    1. Schirrmeister JF, Huber K, Hellwig E, Hahn P (2009) Four-year evaluation of a resin composite including nanofillers in posterior cavities. J Adhes Dent 11:399–404. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a17633 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources