The purpose of this study is to identify the stress levels that act in inlay and onlay restorations, according to the direction and value of the external force applied. The study was conducted using the Finite Element Method (FEM) of three types of ceramics: pressed lithium disilicate and monolith, zirconia, and three different adhesive systems: self-adhesive, universal, and dual-cure cements. In addition to FEM, the inlay/onlay-dental structure interface analysis was performed by means of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM). The geometric models were reconstructed based on computer tomography images of an undamaged molar followed by geometrical procedures of inducing the inlay and onlay reconstructions. The two functional models were then simulated for different orientations of external force and different material properties, according to the considered adhesives and ceramics. The Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) was conducted on 30 extracted teeth, divided into three groups according to the adhesive cement type. Both FEM simulation and SEM investigations reveal very good mechanical behavior of the adhesive-dental structure and adhesive-ceramic interfaces for inlay and onlay reconstructions. All results lead to the conclusion that a physiological mastication force applied, regardless of direction, cannot produce a mechanical failure of either inlay or onlay reconstructions. The adhesive bond between the restorations and the dental structure can stabilize the ceramic restorations, resulting in a higher strength to the action of external forces.

The purpose of this paper is to compare the fracture behavior of interfaces obtained using fourth-generation and universal dental adhesives. The study relies on optic and SEM to evaluate the dentin–adhesive–restoration material interface of the samples and also on FEA simulation of fracture behavior. Specimen fabrication relied on 20 extracted teeth, in which class I cavities were created according to a protocol established based on the rules of minimally invasive therapy. For the direct adhesive technique, the adhesives used were: three-step All Bond, three-batch A and one-step Clearfil Universal Bond Quick-batch B. The restoration was performed with the same composite for both adhesives: Gradia direct posterior. The simulation used a 3D reconstructed molar on which geometric operations were performed to obtain an assembly that replicated a physical specimen. Material properties were applied to each component based on the information found in the literature. A simplified model for crack propagation was constructed, and using the fracture mechanics tool in Ansys 2019, the stress intensity factors that act at the crack tip of the adhesive interface were obtained. Mechanical simulation and microscopic investigation showed us how the interface of the dentine–adhesive–filling material performed in cases of both dental adhesives and for a certain loading condition. Important differences were identified among the adhesives, the fourth generation being superior to the fourth generation especially due to the separate steps in which the tooth surface was prepared for adhesion.