Effects of different treatment modalities on biomechanical behavior of maxillary incisors with external invasive cervical resorption at different progression levels

Creative Commons License

Askerbeyli Örs S., Küçükkaya Eren S.

Dental Traumatology, cilt.39, sa.6, ss.605-615, 2023 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 39 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2023
  • Doi Numarası: 10.1111/edt.12868
  • Dergi Adı: Dental Traumatology
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.605-615
  • Anahtar Kelimeler: Biodentine, finite element analysis, glass ionomer cement, resin composite, stress distribution
  • Hacettepe Üniversitesi Adresli: Evet

Özet

Background/Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the biomechanical behavior of maxillary incisors with external invasive cervical resorption (EICR) at different progression levels after receiving different modes of treatment under occlusal forces using finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and Methods: Three-dimensional (3D) models of intact maxillary central incisors were constructed and modified to include EICR cavities with different progression levels in the buccal cervical areas. The EICR cavities confined to dentin were repaired using Biodentine™ (Septodont Ltd., Saint Maur des Fausse ́s, France), resin composite, or glass ionomer cement (GIC). Additionally, EICR cavities with pulp invasion requiring direct pulp capping were simulated as repaired using Biodentine only or 1 mm thick Biodentine and either resin composite or GIC for the rest of the cavity. Moreover, models with root canal treatment and EICR defects repaired using Biodentine, resin composites, or GIC were also generated. A force of 240 N was applied to the incisal edge. The principal stresses in the dentin were evaluated. Results: GIC showed more favorable results than the other materials in EICR cavities confined to the dentin. However, Biodentine alone resulted in more favorable minimum principal stresses (Pmin) compared to other materials in EICR cavities with close pulp proximity. Exceptionally, the models localized in the coronal third of the root with a circumferential extension of the cavity >90° showed more favorable results for GIC. The presence of root canal treatment had no significant effect on stress values. Conclusions: Based on this FEA study the use of GIC in EICR lesions confined to the dentin is recommended. However, Biodentine may be a better option for restoring EICR lesions close to the pulp with or without root canal treatment. Except when the circumferential extension of the cavity is >90°, the use of GIC may be more advantageous.