Conclusions
OE appears to preferably ensure biomechanical stability of teeth that are endodontically treated and receive core-and-post and crown placement compared to SCL. AR has no adverse biomechanical impact. RCRR < 1 is biomechanically beneficial. Clinical relevance: For endodontically treated and restored teeth, orthodontic extrusion should be preferred compared to surgical crown lengthening prior single-crown restoration. As orthodontic extrusion, apical root resection has no adverse effect on load capability. Single-crown implant-borne restorations are most load capable.
Material and methods
Human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated, decoronated, and divided into 4 groups (n = 48). The following specimen preparation was performed: (I) adhesive core-and-post build-up (control), (II) as (I) and 2 mm apical root resection (AR), (III) before adhesive core-and-post build-up teeth were shortened 2 mm coronally (OE) (IV) as (I), but specimens were embedded 4 mm instead of 2 mm below the CEJ (SCL), group (V) implant-borne restoration with individual all-ceramic abutments (n = 12; ∅4.1/l = 12 mm) (IBR). All specimens received all-ceramic crowns, thermo-mechanical (TML), and subsequent linear loading (LL) until failure. RCRR were calculated and log-rank, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA, and chi-square tests applied (p = 0.05).
Methods
Human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated, decoronated, and divided into 4 groups (n = 48). The following specimen preparation was performed: (I) adhesive core-and-post build-up (control), (II) as (I) and 2 mm apical root resection (AR), (III) before adhesive core-and-post build-up teeth were shortened 2 mm coronally (OE) (IV) as (I), but specimens were embedded 4 mm instead of 2 mm below the CEJ (SCL), group (V) implant-borne restoration with individual all-ceramic abutments (n = 12; ∅4.1/l = 12 mm) (IBR). All specimens received all-ceramic crowns, thermo-mechanical (TML), and subsequent linear loading (LL) until failure. RCRR were calculated and log-rank, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, ANOVA, and chi-square tests applied (p = 0.05).
Results
Fracture loads after subsequent LL differed significantly (p = 0.001) between groups, while implants showed the highest values. Fmax median (min/max) were as follows: (I) 252 (204/542), (II) 293 (243/443), (III) 253 (183/371), (IV) 195 (140/274), and (V) 446 (370/539). Pair-wise comparison showed significant differences (p = 0.001) between group I/IV and group V, I, and IV (p = 0.045), II and IV (p = 0.001), and III compared to IV (p = 0.033), respectively. RCRR below 1 significantly increased load capability compared to RCRR = 1. Conclusions: OE appears to preferably ensure biomechanical stability of teeth that are endodontically treated and receive core-and-post and crown placement compared to SCL. AR has no adverse biomechanical impact. RCRR < 1 is biomechanically beneficial. Clinical relevance: For endodontically treated and restored teeth, orthodontic extrusion should be preferred compared to surgical crown lengthening prior single-crown restoration. As orthodontic extrusion, apical root resection has no adverse effect on load capability. Single-crown implant-borne restorations are most load capable.