Monolithic Endocrown Vs. Hybrid Intraradicular Post/Core/Crown Restorations for Endodontically Treated Teeth; Cross-sectional Study

Mai Soliman; Lamar Alshamrani; Basma Yahya; Ghadah Alajlan; Alhanoof Aldegheishem; Elzahraa Eldwakhly

doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.07.020

Monolithic Endocrown Vs. Hybrid Intraradicular Post/Core/Crown Restorations for Endodontically Treated Teeth; Cross-sectional Study

Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021 Nov;28(11):6523-6531. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.07.020. Epub 2021 Jul 13.

Authors

Mai Soliman¹, Lamar Alshamrani², Basma Yahya², Ghadah Alajlan², Alhanoof Aldegheishem¹, Elzahraa Eldwakhly^{1

3}

Affiliations

¹ Clinical Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia.
² College of Dentistry, Princess Nourah bint Abdulrahman University, P.O. Box 84428, Riyadh 11564, Saudi Arabia.
³ Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo 12613, Egypt.

Abstract

The gold standard for restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth (ETT) with successful clinical longevity requires having minimal invasive preparations and maximal tissue conservation. Many dentists still consider hybrid post/core/crown to be the first choice for restoring ETT. Endocrown is a viable alternative treatment modality to hybrid post/core/crown. This study aims to assess the proper judgment of dentists working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on the use of monolithic endocrown versus hybrid post/core/crown for restoring ETT. The IRB of Princess Nourah Bint Abdulrahman University (PNU) Institutional Review Board reviewed this study. The questionnaire was validated and electronically distributed. The participants were pre-informed that their responses are completely anonymous and used for professional purposes only. The questionnaire surveyed dentists working in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, about their preference for different ETT restorative modalities at various clinical scenarios. Data were analyzed using One-way ANOVA and t-test. All P-values of < 0.05 were considered statistically significant. A total of 275 responses were collected; 61.45% were females and 38.55% males. 56% of them were general practitioners, while 16% were consultants. Prefabricated post/core was the most preferred technique among the participants (18.55%), followed by endocrown (12.36%), and lastly, cast post/core (8.73%). The amount of remaining tooth structure was the most influential in the treatment selection (30.18%), followed by the presence or absence of 1-2 mm ferrule (17.82%). Interocclusal space (12.36%) was the least influential factor. Endocrown recorded 63.27% as the most preferred line of treatment in case of insufficient inter-occlusal space. 40.36% preferred endocrown for patients with occlusal risk factors. The amount of the remaining tooth structure and the tooth position significantly affect the treatment options of the participants. Endocrown was the most preferred treatment modality for restoring ETT for patients with occlusal consideration.

Keywords: Adhesive restoration; Endocrown; Intra-Radicular Post (IRP); Post and core; Root canal treatment (RCT); Survey.