Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
The effect of the amount of interdental spacing on the stress distribution in maxillary central incisors restored with porcelain laminate veneer and composite resin: A 3D-finite element analysis

The effect of the amount of interdental spacing on the stress distribution in maxillary central incisors restored with porcelain laminate veneer and composite resin: A 3D-finite element analysis

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2010;35(1):30-39
Publication date (electronic) : 2010 January 31
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.1.030
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.
2Mechanical Aerospace Engineering, Gyeongsang National University, Jinju, Korea.
Corresponding Author: Byeong-Hoon Cho. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, 275-1 Yeongeon-Dong, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, 110-768, Korea. Tel: 82-2-2072-3514, Fax: 82-2-2072-3859, chobh@snu.ac.kr
Received 2009 December 30; Revised 2010 January 04; Accepted 2010 January 04.

Abstract

This study evaluated the influence of the type of restoration and the amount of interdental spacing on the stress distribution in maxillary central incisors restored by means of porcelain laminate veneers and direct composite resin restorations.

Three-dimensional finite element models were fabricated to represent different types of restorations. Four clinical situations were considered. Type I, closing diastema using composite resin. Labial border of composite resin was extended just enough to cover the interdental space; Type II, closing diastema using composite resin without reduction of labial surface. Labial border of composite resin was extended distally to cover the half of the total labial surface; Type III, closing diastema using composite resin with reduction of labial surface. Labial border of the preparation and restored composite resin was extended distally two-thirds of the total labial surface; Type IV, closing diastema using porcelain laminate veneer with a feathered-edge preparation technique. Four different interdental spaces (1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0 mm) were applied for each type of restorations.

For all types of restoration, adding the width of free extension of the porcelain laminate veneer and composite resin increased the stress occurred at the bonding layer. The maximum stress values observed at the bonding layer of Type IV were higher than that of Type I, II and III. However, the increasing rate of maximum stress value of Type IV was lower than that of Type I, II and III.

References

1. Heymann HO, Hershey HG. Use of composite resin for restorative and orthodontic correction of anterior interdental spacing. J Prosthet Dent 1985. 53(6)766–771.
2. Lenhard M. Closing diastemas with resin composite restorations. Eur J Esthet Dent 2008. 3(3)258–268.
3. Pensler AV. Multiple-diastema porcelain laminate veneers: a case study. Compendium 1993. 14(11)1470–1478.
4. Nash RW. Closing a large central diastema using a pressed ceramic. Dent Today 2003. 22(11)62–65.
5. Aherne T. Treatment of maxillary anterior diastema using resin-bonded porcelain crown restorations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001. 13(6)443–445.
6. Tanaka OM, Furquim BD, Pascotto RC, Ribeiro GL, Bósio JA, Maruo H. The dilemma of the open gingival embrasure between maxillary central incisors. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008. 9(6)92–98.
7. Dumfahrt H, Schaffer H. Porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation after 1 to 10 years of service. Part II. Clinical results. Int J Prosthodont 2000. 139–18.
8. Peumans M, De Munck J, Fieuws S, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G, Van Meerbeek B. A prospective ten-year clinical trial of porcelain veneers. J Adhes Dent 2004. 665–76.
9. Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS. Ten-year outcome of porcelain laminate veneers placed within the general dental services in England and Wales. J Dent 2009. 3731–38.
10. Shaini FJ, Shortall AC, Marquis PM. Clinical performance of porcelain laminate veneers. A retrospective evaluation over a period of 6˙5 years. J Oral Rehabil 1997. 24553–559.
11. Dunne SM, Millar BJ. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br Dent J 1993. 175317–321.
12. Hui KK, Williams B, Davis EH, Holt RD. A comparative assessment on the strengths of porcelain veneers for incisor teeth dependent on their design characteristics. Br Dent J 1991. 17151–55.
13. Highton R, Caputo AA, Mátyás J. A photoelastic study of stresses on porcelain laminate preparations. J Prosthet Dent 1987. 58157–161.
14. Hahn P, Gustav M, Hellwig E. An in vitro assessment of the strength of porcelain veneers dependent on tooth preparation. J Oral Rehabil 2000. 271024–1029.
15. Morin DL, Douglas WH, Cross M, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: experimental strain measurement. Dent Mater 1988. 441–48.
16. Karl M, Dickinson A, Holst S, Holst A. Biomechanical methods applied in dentistry: a comparative overview of photoelastic examinations, strain gauge measurements, finite element analysis and three-dimensional deformation analysis. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2009. 17(2)50–57.
17. Reeh ES, Ross GK. Tooth stiffness with composite veneers: a strain gauge and finite element evaluation. Dent Mater 1994. 10247–252.
18. Morin DL, Cross M, Voller VR, Douglas WH, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: modelling and analysis. Dent Mater 1988. 477–84.
19. Hutton DV. Fundamentals of finite element analysis 2006. 477–84.
20. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Melsen B. The finite element method: a tool to study orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res 2005. 84428–433.
21. Magne P, Belser UC. Rationalization of shape and related stress distribution in posterior teeth: a finite element study using nonlinear contact analysis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2002. 22425–433.
22. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A, Romanowicz M. Finite element analysis of mechanism of cervical lesion formation in simulated molars during mastication and parafunction. J Prosthet Dent 2005. 94520–529.
23. Boccaccio A, Lamberti L, Pappalettere C, Cozzani M, Siciliani G. Comparison of different orthodontic devices for mandibular symphyseal distraction osteogenesis: A finite element study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008. 134260–269.
24. Ona M, Wakabayashi N. Influence of alveolar support on stress in periodontal structures. J Dent Res 2006. 851087–1091.
25. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Do dental composite always shrink toward the light. J Dent Res 1998. 77(6)1435–1445.
26. Chun HJ, Shin HS, Han CH, Lee SH. Influence of implant abutment type on stress distribution in bone under various loading conditions using finite element analysis. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006. 21195–202.
27. Hübsch PF, Middleton J, Knox J. A finite element analysis of the stress at the restoration-tooth interface, comparing inlays and bulk fillings. Biomaterials 2000. 211015–1019.
28. Magne P, Douglas WH. Design optimization and evolution of bonded ceramics for the anterior dentition: A finite-element analysis. Quintessence Int 1999. 30661–672.
29. Zarone F, Apicella D, Sorrentino R, Ferro V, Aversa R, Apicella A. Influence of tooth preparation design on the stress distribution in maxillary central incisors restored by means of alumina porcelain veneers: A 3D-finite element analysis. Dent Mater 2005. 211178–1188.
30. Seymour KG, Cherukara GP, Samarawickrama DY. Stress within porcelain veneers and the composite lute using different preparation designs. J Prosthodont 2001. 1016–21.
31. Troedson M, Derand T. Shear stresses in the adhesive layer under porcelain veneers: A finite element method study. Acta Odontol Scand 1998. 56257–262.
32. Troedson M, Derand T. Effect of margin design, cement polymerization, and angle of loading on stress in porcelain veneers. J Prosthet Dent 1999. 82518–524.
33. Chander NG, Padmanabhan TV. Finite element stress analysis of diastema closure with ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthodont 2009. 18(7)577–581.
34. Dejak B, Mlotkowski A. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of strength and adhesion of composite resin versus ceramic inlays in molars. J Prosthet Dent 2008. 99(2)131–140.
35. Anusavice K. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials 1996. 10th edth ed. Philadelphia: Saunders; 590–595.
36. Baratieri LN. Direct adhesive restoration on fractured anterior teeth 2000. 265–312.
37. Baratieri LN. Composite Restorations in Anterior Teeth: Fundamentals and Possibilities 2005. Sao Paulo: Quintessence books.;
38. Aschheim KW, Dale BG. Esthetic dentistry: a clinical approach to techniques and materials 2001. 2nd edth ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 151–155.
39. Jordan RE, Suzuki M, Senda A. A clinical evaluation of porcelain laminate veneers: a four year recall report. J Esthet Dent 1989. 1126–137.
40. Graber TM. Normal occlusion. Orthodontics, principles and practice 1972. 3rd ed.th ed. WB Saunders Co.;
41. Carlsson GE. Bite force and chewing efficiency. Front Oral Physiol 1974. 1265–292.
42. Ausiello P, Rengo S, Davidson CL, Watts DC. Stress distributions in adhesively cemented ceramic and resin-composite Class II inlay restorations: a 3D-FEA study. Dent Mater 2004. 20862–872.
43. Craig RG. Compressive Properties of Enamel, Dental Cements, and Gold. J Dent Res 1961. 40936–945.
44. Craig RG. Restorative dental materials 1985. St. Louis., MO: The C.V. Mosby Co.; –. .
45. Sano H, Ciucchi B, Matthews WG, Pashley DH. Tensile properties of mineralized and demineralized human and bovine dentin. J Dent Res 1994. 731205–1211.
46. Farah JW, Craig RG, Meroueh KA. Finite element analysis of three- and four-unit bridges. J Oral Rehabil 1989. 16603–611.
47. Lin CP. Structure-property-function relationships in the dentin-enamel complex and tooth-restoration interface(dissertation) 1993. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota;
48. Magne P, Perakis N, Belser UC, Krejci I. Stress distribution of inlay-anchored adhesive fixed partial dentures: a finite element analysis of influence of restorative materials and abutment preparation design. J Prosthet Dent 2002. 87516–527.
49. Rees JS. Elastic modulus of the periodontal ligament. Biomaterials 1997. 18995–999.
50. Albakry M. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent 2003. 89374–380.
51. Pegoretti A. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials 2002. 232667–2682.
52. Farah JW, Graig RG. Finite element stress analysis of a restored axisymmetric first molar. J Dent Res 1974. 53859–866.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

Finite element models of each type of restorations. a. Type I, b. Type II, c. Type III, d. Type IV.

Figure 2

Load angulation. 50 N of load was applied at 125° angles (tearing force) with the tooth's longitudinal axis at the palatal surface of the crown.

Figure 3

von Mises stress distribution patterns of each type of restoration. These figures represent stress distribution at the tooth side of bonding layer. a. Type I with interdental space of 2.0 mm. b. Type II with interdental space of 2.0 mm. c. Type III with interdental space of 2.0 mm. d. Type IV with interdental space of 2.0 mm.

Figure 4

Line graphs of maximum von Mises stress values at the cervical area of the tooth side of bonding layer. Horizontal axis means interdental space. Vertical axis means von Mises stress values (MPa).

Figure 5

Maximum von Mises stress values in Type II restoration which was restored with porcelain laminate veneer instead of composite resin.

Table 1

Three-dimensional finite element models simulating composite resin and porcelain laminate veneer restorations, with or without tooth preparation, for restoring the interdental spaces ranging from 1 mm to 4 mm

Table 1

*The tooh model was reduced by 0.5 mm up to 2/3 of labial surface for type III model and up to distal surface for type IV model.

Each finite element model was designed as restoring half the space of the amount of interdental space (0.5, 1.0, 1.5, 2.0 mm) because opposite tooth model was under symmetrical condition.

Table 2

Mechanical properties of materials used

Table 2

Table 3

Maximum von Mises stress within each model with varying interdental spaces (Unit: MPa)

Table 3

The maximum values were obtained at the cervical area near the line angle between the labial surface and mesial surface.