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

Junbae Hong; Seung-Min Tak; Seung-Ho Baek; Byeong-Hoon Cho

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.1.030

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 35(1); 2010 > Article

Basic Research 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: Junbae Hong¹, Seung-Min Tak², Seung-Ho Baek¹, Byeong-Hoon Cho¹; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2010;35(1):30-39.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.1.030
Published online: January 31, 2010

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: December 30, 2009 • Revised: January 4, 2010 • Accepted: January 4, 2010

15 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

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.
Keywords: Three dimensional-finite element analysis; Interdental space; Porcelain laminate veneer; Composite resin; Bonding layer; Stress distribution

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.Article PubMed
2. Lenhard M. Closing diastemas with resin composite restorations. Eur J Esthet Dent. 2008;3(3):258-268.PubMed
3. Pensler AV. Multiple-diastema porcelain laminate veneers: a case study. Compendium. 1993;14(11):1470-1478.PubMed
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.PubMed
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.Article
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;13: 9-18.PubMed
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;6: 65-76.PubMed
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;37: 31-38.Article PubMed
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;24: 553-559.Article PubMed
11. Dunne SM, Millar BJ. A longitudinal study of the clinical performance of porcelain veneers. Br Dent J. 1993;175: 317-321.Article PubMed PDF
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;171: 51-55.PubMed
13. Highton R, Caputo AA, Mátyás J. A photoelastic study of stresses on porcelain laminate preparations. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58: 157-161.Article PubMed
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;27: 1024-1029.Article PubMed
15. Morin DL, Douglas WH, Cross M, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: experimental strain measurement. Dent Mater. 1988;4: 41-48.Article PubMed
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.PubMed
17. Reeh ES, Ross GK. Tooth stiffness with composite veneers: a strain gauge and finite element evaluation. Dent Mater. 1994;10: 247-252.Article PubMed
18. Morin DL, Cross M, Voller VR, Douglas WH, DeLong R. Biophysical stress analysis of restored teeth: modelling and analysis. Dent Mater. 1988;4: 77-84.Article PubMed
19. Hutton DV. Fundamentals of finite element analysis. 2006;4: 77-84.
20. Cattaneo PM, Dalstra M, Melsen B. The finite element method: a tool to study orthodontic tooth movement. J Dent Res. 2005;84: 428-433.Article PubMed PDF
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;22: 425-433.PubMed
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;94: 520-529.Article PubMed
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;134: 260-269.Article PubMed
24. Ona M, Wakabayashi N. Influence of alveolar support on stress in periodontal structures. J Dent Res. 2006;85: 1087-1091.Article PubMed PDF
25. Versluis A, Tantbirojn D, Douglas WH. Do dental composite always shrink toward the light. J Dent Res. 1998;77(6):1435-1445.PubMed
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;21: 195-202.PubMed
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;21: 1015-1019.Article PubMed
28. Magne P, Douglas WH. Design optimization and evolution of bonded ceramics for the anterior dentition: A finite-element analysis. Quintessence Int. 1999;30: 661-672.PubMed
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;21: 1178-1188.PubMed
30. Seymour KG, Cherukara GP, Samarawickrama DY. Stress within porcelain veneers and the composite lute using different preparation designs. J Prosthodont. 2001;10: 16-21.PubMed
31. Troedson M, Derand T. Shear stresses in the adhesive layer under porcelain veneers: A finite element method study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1998;56: 257-262.Article PubMed
32. Troedson M, Derand T. Effect of margin design, cement polymerization, and angle of loading on stress in porcelain veneers. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;82: 518-524.Article PubMed
33. Chander NG, Padmanabhan TV. Finite element stress analysis of diastema closure with ceramic laminate veneers. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(7):577-581.PubMed
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.Article PubMed
35. Anusavice K. Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 1996;10th 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 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;1: 126-137.PubMed
40. Graber TM. Normal occlusion. Orthodontics, principles and practice. 1972;3rd ed.. WB Saunders Co..
41. Carlsson GE. Bite force and chewing efficiency. Front Oral Physiol. 1974;1: 265-292.PubMed
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;20: 862-872.Article PubMed
43. Craig RG. Compressive Properties of Enamel, Dental Cements, and Gold. J Dent Res. 1961;40: 936-945.Article PDF
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;73: 1205-1211.Article PubMed PDF
46. Farah JW, Craig RG, Meroueh KA. Finite element analysis of three- and four-unit bridges. J Oral Rehabil. 1989;16: 603-611.PubMed
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;87: 516-527.PubMed
49. Rees JS. Elastic modulus of the periodontal ligament. Biomaterials. 1997;18: 995-999.Article PubMed
50. Albakry M. Biaxial flexural strength, elastic moduli, and x-ray diffraction characterization of three pressable all-ceramic materials. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;89: 374-380.Article PubMed
51. Pegoretti A. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials. 2002;23: 2667-2682.PubMed
52. Farah JW, Graig RG. Finite element stress analysis of a restored axisymmetric first molar. J Dent Res. 1974;53: 859-866.Article PubMed PDF

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

^*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 3

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

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

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

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

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2010;35(1):30-39. Published online January 31, 2010

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.1.030

XML Download

Figure

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

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.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

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

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 3

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

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

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

^*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 3 Maximum von Mises stress within each model with varying interdental spaces (Unit: MPa)

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