Objectives: Large part of the tooth is required to be removed during crown preparation. A minimally invasive method for preparing single crowns is required to increase the durability of teeth. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of two ceramic systems fabricated with minimally invasive vertical preparation. Materials and methods: Forty endodontically treated maxillary premolars were prepared with vertical preparation and received temporary crowns for a period of 21 days. Twenty zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate (Celtra Duo HT, Dentsply Sirona, Germany) and 20 monolithic high translucency zirconia (Katana HT, Kuarary Noritake, Japan) crowns were fabricated by CAD/CAM and cemented with dual-polymerizing luting resin. The crowns were evaluated clinically and radiographically for 36 months following modified FDI criteria. Statistical analysis was conducted with t Student test (Cochran Q). Results: Over the follow-up period, there was no need to replace any of the study’s crowns. The overall survival rate of the 40 crowns was 100% according to the Kaplan–Meier survival method. The clinical quality of all crowns and the patient’s satisfaction were high. No caries was detected and no adverse soft tissue reactions around the crowns were observed. Periodontal probing depth was reported to be increased at mesial and distal sites more than the facial one in the 36-month follow-up with no statistically significant difference between both materials (P = 0.186). Conclusions: Zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate could be used as a material for restoration of teeth prepared with vertical preparation technique. Both ceramic materials achieved good esthetic results, promotes healthy and stable soft tissues with no mechanical complications after 3 years of clinical evaluation. Clinical relevance: Monolithic high translucency zirconia and zirconia-reinforced lithium silicate ceramics can be used for the restorations of minimal invasive vertical preparation in premolar area with 0.5 mm margin thickness.

This clinical report demonstrated the use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) for manufacturing of custom-made post and core in weakened endodontically treated central incisors. The PEEK structure was manufactured using computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM). The optimal fit of this custom-made endodontic post allowed a thinner cement layer; and removed the need to manufacture a core build-up. While supplementary clinical trials and in vitro studies are needed to totally elucidate the advantages and limitations of PEEK as an option for post and core manufacturing, this case report showed that it can be promising for a predictable and simplified treatment with five years of success.

Objective: To study the fracture resistance and stress distribution pattern of translucent zirconia and fiber-reinforced composite cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RPFDPs) with two retainer designs. Materials and methods: Forty human mandibular molars were divided into two groups according to the retainer design. The restorations included a premolar pontic and 2 retainer designs: (D1) inlay ring retainer and (D2) lingual coverage retainer. Each main group was then divided according to the material used (n = 10): zirconia (Z) or fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) (F). Restorations were cemented using dual polymerizing adhesive luting resin. All specimens were thermo-cycled (5–55 °C for 10,000 cycles), then subjected to dynamic loading (50 N, 240,000, and 1.6 Hz) and fracture resistance test. The finite element analysis includes the two models of retainer designs used in the in vitro test. Modified von Mises stress values on enamel, dentin, luting resin, and restorations were examined when the restorations failed. Results: A significantly higher failure load was recorded for zirconia groups (505.00 ± 61.50 and 548.00 ± 75.63 N for D1Z and D2Z, respectively) than for FRC groups (345.00 ± 42.33 and 375.10 ± 53.62 N for D1F and D2F, respectively) (P = 0.001). With regard to failure mode, D2 showed a more favorable failure pattern than D1. Model D2 resulted in lower stresses in tooth structure than model D1, and zirconia transmitted more stresses to the tooth structure than FRC. Conclusions: The lingual coverage retainer (D2) enhanced the biomechanical performance of the restoration/tooth complex. Considering the failure mode and tooth stress, FRC is a promising treatment option when constructing a cantilever RPFDP. Clinical relevance: Dentists should be aware of the biomechanical behavior during the selection of the material and for the replacement of a single missing mandibular premolar tooth with minimally invasive RBFDP.

Purpose: To evaluate the influence of retainer design and ceramic materials on the durability of minimally invasive cantilever resin-bonded fixed dental prostheses (RBFDPs) after artificial aging.Methods: One hundred caries-free human mandibular molars were prepared as abutments for all-ceramic cantilevered fixed dental prostheses using the following retainer designs: One wing (OW), Two wings (TW), Inlay ring (IR), Lingual coverage (LC), and Occlusal coverage (OC). Two ceramic materials were used: monolithic high translucent zirconia(z) and zirconia-reinforced lithium disilicate (ZLS2) (n=10). All restorations were adhesively bonded with resin cement. The thermocycling of the specimens were performed between 5°C and 55°C for 10,000 cycles and then exposed to 240.000 cycles of dynamic loading on a chewing simulator. All surviving specimens were loaded onto the pontic until failure using a universal testing machine.Results: The mean failure load ranged from 124.00 to 627.00 N for the zirconia groups and from 133.30 to 230.00 N for the ZLS2 groups. Regarding the materials, a significantly higher failure load was recorded in the zirconia groups than in the ZLS2 groups (P<0.001), except for OW (P=0.748). Regarding the retainer designs, a significant different failure load was recorded between the different designs except for IR and LC in the zirconia groups, IR and OC, OW and TW, and TW and LC in the ZLS2 groups (P<0.001).Conclusions: Zirconia IR, LC, and OC can be used as cantilever RBFDP in the premolar region. The fracture resistance of the ZLS2 design was below the normal bite force and should not be recommended as the first option.