Clinical success of endodontically treated posterior teeth is determined by the postendodontic restoration. Several options have been proposed to restore endodontically treated teeth. Endocrowns represent a conservative and esthetic restorative alternative to full coverage crowns. The preparation consists of a circular equigingival butt-joint margin and central retention cavity into the entire pulp chamber constructing both the crown and the core as a single unit. The case reports discussed here are moderately damaged endodontically treated molars restored using all ceramic endocrowns fabricated using two different systems, namely, CAD/CAM and pressed ceramic. 1. Introduction Postendodontic restoration should preserve and protect the existing tooth structure, while restoring satisfactory esthetics, form, and function. The goal is to achieve minimally invasive preparations with maximal tissue conservation for restoring endodontically treated teeth. This will help to mechanically stabilize the tooth-restoration complex and increase surfaces available for adhesion. A number of options are available in every clinical situation. The choice depends on the structural integrity of the tooth, esthetic, and protective requirements [1]. In this perspective, endocrowns can be considered as a feasible alternative to full crowns for restoration of nonvital posterior teeth, especially those with minimal crown height but sufficient tissue available for stable and durable adhesive cementation [2]. The evolution of ceramic technology especially dental CAD/CAM systems have enhanced the options to produce single all ceramic endocrowns with high biocompatibility and optimal mechanical properties [3]. In the present paper two ceramic endocrowns fabricated by different methods are presented as case reports. 2. Case 1 A 32-year-old female patient reported for the filling of her lower 1st molar. On clinical examination tooth number 36 was root canal treated one month back (Figure 1). It was asymptomatic and the occlusogingival height of the remaining crown structure was approximately 4？mm. The radiographic findings revealed well obturated canals with no periapical changes. Figure 1: Postobturation occlusal view showing the amount of residual tooth structure. A conservative approach of restoring the tooth with an endocrown was decided as the treatment option, as more than half the residual tooth structure was remaining and there were no occlusal wear facets. On additional request by the patient for an advanced and a prompt restoration, CAD/CAM ceramic was chosen. After removal
References
[1]
K. Gulabivala, “Restoration of the root treated tooth,” in Endodontics, C. J. R. Stock, K. Gulabivala, and R. Walker, Eds., pp. 279–305, Elsevier, 3rd edition, 2004.
[2]
E. Lander and D. Dietschi, “Endocrowns: a clinical report,” Quintessence International, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 99–106, 2008.
[3]
V. Veselinovic, A. Todorovic, D. Lisjak, and V. Lazic, “Restoring endodontically treated teeth with all ceramic endo-crowns case report,” Stomatoloski Glasnik Srbije, vol. 55, pp. 54–64, 2008.
[4]
B. Suresh Chandra and V. Gopi Krishna, Grossman’s Endodontic Practice, Wolters Kluwer, New Delhi, India, 12th edition, 2010.
[5]
D. Dietschi, O. Duc, I. Krejci, and A. Sadan, “Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature—part 2 (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies),” Quintessence International, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 117–129, 2008.
[6]
T. S. Vinothkumar, D. Kandaswamy, and P. Chanana, “CAD/CAM fabricated single unit all ceramic post core crown restoration,” Journal of Conservative Dentistry, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 86–89, 2011.
[7]
C.-Y. Chang, J.-S. Kuo, Y.-S. Lin, and Y.-H. Chang, “Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns,” Journal of Dental Sciences, vol. 4, no. 3, pp. 110–117, 2009.
[8]
J. Bernhart, A. Br？uning, M. J. Altenburger, and K.-T. Wrbas, “Cerec3D endocrowns—two-year clinical examination of CAD/CAM crowns for restoring endodontically treated molars,” International Journal of Computerized Dentistry, vol. 13, no. 2, pp. 141–154, 2010.
[9]
A. Bindl and W. H. M？rmann, “Clinical evaluation of adhesively placed cerec endo-crowns after 2 years—preliminary results,” Journal of Adhesive Dentistry, vol. 1, no. 3, pp. 255–265, 1999.
[10]
F. Zarone, R. Sorrentino, D. Apicella et al., “Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis,” Dental Materials, vol. 22, no. 11, pp. 1035–1044, 2006.
[11]
C.-L. Lin, Y.-H. Chang, and C.-A. Pai, “Evaluation of failure risks in ceramic restorations for endodontically treated premolar with MOD preparation,” Dental Materials, vol. 27, no. 5, pp. 431–438, 2011.
[12]
D. Dietschi, S. Bouillaguet, and A. Sadan, “Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth,” in Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp, K. M. Hargreaves and S. Cohen, Eds., pp. 777–807, Elsevier Mosby, 10th edition, 2011.
[13]
G. T. Rocca and B. Serge, “Alternative treatments for the restoration of non vital teeth,” Revue d'Odonto Stomatologie, vol. 37, pp. 259–272, 2008.
[14]
G. T. Rocca and I. Krejci, “Crown and post- free adhesive restorations for endodontically treated posterior teeth: from direct composite to endocrowns,” European Journal of Esthetic Dentistry, vol. 8, pp. 156–179, 2013.
