attachment

using this table and matter explain comparison across groups and canal thirds,post hoc comparison and intragroup comparison in paragraph format seperately - Mean sealer penetration in the coronal third was highest in Group III (1428 ± 383 μm), followed by Group II (1047 ± 321 μm) and Group I (880 ± 598 μm), with a significant overall difference (P = 0.011) [Figure 3]. Group III differed significantly from Group I (P = 0.0101), while other comparisons were not significant [Table 1]. In the middle third, Group I (714 ± 280 μm) showed significantly lower values than Group II (1083 ± 253 μm) and Group III (1195 ± 240 μm) (P < 0.0001). Group I differed significantly from both Group II (P = 0.0024) and Group III (P < 0.0001); no difference was found between Groups II and III (P = 0.5202) [Table 1]. In the apical third, Group I (656 ± 362 μm) had significantly lower penetration than Group II (1051 ± 230 μm) and Group III (1047 ± 404 μm) (P = 0.0066). Significant differences were seen between Group I and both Group II (P = 0.0146) and Group III (P = 0.0155), with no significant difference between Groups II and III (P = 0.9996) [Table 1]. Intragroup comparisons across canal levels showed no significant differences within Group I (P = 0.44), Group II (P = 0.08), or Group III (P = 0.06), indicating consistent penetration within each group.

Here are the three sections written in paragraph format:

Comparison Across Groups and Canal Thirds
Sealer penetration depth varied significantly across all three canal levels when comparing the three irrigation groups. In the coronal third, Group III (PUI/Ultrasonic) recorded the highest mean penetration (1428 ± 383 μm), followed by Group II (Diode Laser) at 1047 ± 321 μm and Group I (Conventional Needle) at 880 ± 598 μm, with a statistically significant overall difference (P = 0.011). In the middle third, Group I again showed the lowest penetration (714 ± 280 μm) compared to Group II (1083 ± 253 μm) and Group III (1195 ± 240 μm), and the overall difference was highly significant (P < 0.0001). A similar trend was observed in the apical third, where Group I (656 ± 362 μm) performed notably lower than both Group II (1051 ± 230 μm) and Group III (1047 ± 404 μm), with a significant overall difference (P = 0.0066). Across all three canal levels, Group I consistently demonstrated the lowest sealer penetration, while Groups II and III showed comparable and superior performance.

Post-Hoc Pairwise Comparisons
Post-hoc pairwise analysis revealed that in the coronal third, the only significant difference was between Group I and Group III (P = 0.0101), while the comparisons between Group I vs. Group II and Group II vs. Group III did not reach statistical significance. In the middle third, Group I differed significantly from both Group II (P = 0.0024) and Group III (P < 0.0001), whereas no significant difference was observed between Groups II and III (P = 0.5202). In the apical third, Group I was again significantly lower than Group II (P = 0.0146) and Group III (P = 0.0155), with no meaningful difference detected between Groups II and III (P = 0.9996). Overall, the post-hoc results consistently identified Group I as the outlier, performing significantly lower than the activated irrigation groups, while Groups II and III performed at a statistically equivalent level across all canal thirds.

Intragroup Comparison Across Canal Levels
When penetration depths were compared across the three canal levels within each group, no statistically significant differences were found in any of the groups. Group I (Conventional Needle) showed a P-value of 0.44, Group II (Diode Laser) yielded P = 0.08, and Group III (PUI/Ultrasonic) returned P = 0.06 - all falling above the 0.05 threshold for significance. This indicates that within each individual group, sealer penetration remained relatively consistent regardless of whether the measurement was taken at the coronal, middle, or apical third. The absence of intragroup variation suggests that each irrigation technique produced a uniform depth of sealer penetration along the length of the root canal, and that the differences observed in the between-group analyses were attributable to the irrigation method itself rather than to canal-level-dependent variability.

in posterior tooth treated with root canal which type of endocrown is most suitable

Reading File
Searching PubMed

endocrown posterior tooth material comparison

Searching the Web

best endocrown material posterior RCT tooth zirconia lithium disilicate 2024

Finding Sources
Reading Article
Here is a detailed answer based on the systematic review evidence and current literature:

Endocrown Material Selection for Posterior RCT Teeth

What is an Endocrown?

An endocrown is a one-piece ceramic restoration that covers the occlusal surface and extends into the pulp chamber for retention, eliminating the need for a post and core. It is specifically designed for endodontically treated posterior teeth with significant coronal tissue loss. The pulp chamber provides the primary macro-mechanical retention, and adhesive cementation provides the micro-mechanical bond.

Most Suitable Material: IPS e.max CAD (Lithium Disilicate)

Based on a 2024 systematic review of 17 in vitro studies (AlHelal, J Prosthodont Res, PMID: 37286503), lithium disilicate (IPS e.max CAD) is the most commonly used and best-supported material for CAD/CAM endocrowns, recording the highest fracture resistance among all tested ceramics:
MaterialFracture Resistance
IPS e.max CAD (Lithium Disilicate)2863 ± 51 N
LAVA Ultimate (Resin Nanoceramic)2484 ± 464 N
Cerasmart (Hybrid Ceramic)1981 ± 170 N
Vita Enamic (Polymer-infiltrated ceramic)1952 ± 378 N
Vita Suprinity (ZLS)1859 ± 588 N
Celtra Duo (ZLS)1618 ± 585 N
Cerec Blocs (Feldspathic)236 ± 32 N (not recommended)
Average masticatory force in the posterior region is approximately 200-800 N, meaning all materials except feldspathic ceramic can withstand functional loads - but lithium disilicate provides the greatest safety margin.

Why Lithium Disilicate (e.max CAD) is Preferred

  1. Highest fracture resistance among tested materials (~2863 N), well above posterior occlusal load demands.
  2. Acid-etchable glass matrix - can be etched with HF acid and silanated, enabling true resin-bonded adhesive cementation, which is critical for endocrown retention.
  3. CAD/CAM compatible - milled from standardized blocks, ensuring consistency and minimal internal porosity.
  4. Optical properties - translucency closely mimics natural dentin, acceptable aesthetics for premolars and molars.
  5. Established clinical track record - most extensively studied material in endocrown research.

Zirconia Endocrowns: When to Consider

Monolithic zirconia is an alternative, particularly for:
  • Bruxism / heavy parafunctional habits (higher flexural strength, ~900-1200 MPa vs. ~400 MPa for lithium disilicate)
  • Very limited occlusal space (can be fabricated thinner)
  • Low-esthetic demand (posterior molars with no smile-line visibility)
However, zirconia cannot be acid-etched and relies on adhesive primers (MDP-based cements like Panavia) for bonding, which is less reliable for endocrown retention compared to the full adhesive bond achievable with lithium disilicate. This is an important limitation for endocrowns specifically, since adhesive cementation is fundamental to the concept.

Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate (ZLS): A Middle Ground

Materials like Vita Suprinity and Celtra Duo (ZLS) offer a compromise - they are partially crystalline, etchable, and stronger than conventional glass ceramics. However, their fracture resistance in endocrown studies (~1618-1859 N) is lower than e.max CAD, and marginal adaptation data is more variable.

Clinical Decision Summary

Clinical ScenarioRecommended Material
Standard posterior RCT tooth (premolar/molar)Lithium disilicate (e.max CAD)
Heavy bruxism, high occlusal loadMonolithic zirconia (with MDP cement)
Minimal space, thin wallsMonolithic zirconia
Esthetic priority (visible premolar)Lithium disilicate
Moderate load, balance of strength + bondZLS (Vita Suprinity/Celtra Duo)

Bottom line: For the majority of posterior endodontically treated teeth, IPS e.max CAD (lithium disilicate) is the material of choice for endocrowns - it combines the highest fracture resistance, optimal acid-etch adhesive bonding, CAD/CAM precision, and extensive clinical validation. Zirconia is reserved for high-load or bruxism cases where strength outweighs bonding considerations.

Steps on crown preparation for zirconia endocrown for molar tooth

Finding Sources
Searching PubMed

endocrown preparation molar zirconia CAD CAM

Searching the Web

zirconia endocrown crown preparation steps molar clinical protocol 2024

Reading Web Page

endocrown preparation steps zirconia molar pulp chamber axial walls margin

Here is a complete, step-by-step clinical guide for zirconia endocrown preparation on a molar tooth:

Zirconia Endocrown Preparation: Molar Tooth

Pre-operative Considerations

Before beginning preparation, confirm the following:
  • Root canal treatment is complete and well-condensed (ideally >4 weeks healed)
  • Adequate remaining coronal tooth structure (minimum 2 mm of sound cervical dentin circumferentially)
  • Pulp chamber depth of at least 3-4 mm available for retention
  • No active periapical pathology
  • Patient occlusion assessed (bruxism should be managed with a nightguard post-cementation)

Armamentarium

  • Coarse flat-end tapered diamond bur (for occlusal reduction)
  • Coarse round-end tapered diamond bur (for axial reduction)
  • Fine round-end tapered diamond bur (for finishing)
  • Small round bur or Gates-Glidden bur (for pulp chamber preparation)
  • Depth-cutting bur (optional, for controlled reduction)
  • Retraction cord
  • Digital scanner or polyvinylsiloxane (PVS) impression material

Step-by-Step Preparation

Step 1: Occlusal Reduction

Using a flat-end coarse tapered diamond bur:
  • Reduce the occlusal surface by 2.0 mm uniformly, following the natural occlusal topography
  • For zirconia, 1.5-2.0 mm of occlusal clearance is the minimum to allow adequate material thickness
  • Use depth orientation grooves (0.5 mm and 1.5 mm depth cuts) to guide uniform reduction
  • The final occlusal surface should be flat to gently contoured - avoid sharp cuspal anatomy at this stage
  • Check clearance in all excursive movements with articulating paper
Unlike a conventional crown where you follow cusp inclines, the endocrown occlusal surface is essentially flat. This becomes the seating platform.

Step 2: Axial Wall Preparation

Using a round-end tapered diamond bur:
  • Reduce axial walls to create a slight taper (divergence) of 5-10° from pulpal floor to margin
  • Remove all existing restorative material, caries, and undermined enamel
  • Axial walls should be smooth, continuous, and free of undercuts
  • Minimum axial wall thickness of remaining dentin should be 1.0-1.5 mm
Note: Unlike a standard crown, the axial walls of an endocrown are intentionally kept short - only the supra-gingival portion is prepared. There is no apical extension into a ferrule zone. The pulp chamber provides the primary retention.

Step 3: Marginal Design - Butt-Joint / Chamfer at Cervical

  • Prepare a supragingival butt-joint margin (preferred) or a shallow chamfer of 0.5-1.0 mm at the cervical level
  • The margin must be at or slightly above the CEJ - do not extend subgingivally unless clinical crown length demands it
  • The margin must be a clean, continuous, well-defined line circumferentially
  • Avoid bevels - zirconia requires a butt-joint or chamfer; a bevel creates thin unsupported ceramic margins that can fracture
The butt-joint margin is specifically advantageous for zirconia because monolithic zirconia is strong enough to function without a shoulder, and it preserves maximum tooth structure.

Step 4: Pulp Chamber Preparation (Retention Box)

This is the most critical and distinctive step of endocrown preparation:
  1. Remove all gutta-percha and root canal sealer from the pulp chamber only - do NOT enter the root canals
  2. Clean the chamber floor and walls with a round bur or ultrasonic tip
  3. Ensure the pulp chamber provides a minimum depth of 3-4 mm (ideal: 4-5 mm) for macro-mechanical retention
  4. Remove any dentinal overhangs, ledges, or irregularities from pulp horns
  5. The chamber walls should be slightly divergent occlusally (5-10°) to allow seating of the restoration without binding
  6. Lightly flatten and smooth the pulp chamber floor - it becomes the internal seating surface
  7. If chamber depth is less than 3 mm, the endocrown is contraindicated (insufficient retention)
The orifices of the root canals should be left sealed with 2-3 mm of composite or glass ionomer buildup to prevent the zirconia from seating into the canal orifices, which would create a stress concentration point.

Step 5: Removal of Undercuts and Finishing

  • Inspect all internal and external walls for undercuts using an explorer
  • Block out any remaining undercuts with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) or flowable composite if present - do not prepare into undercuts as this would prevent seating
  • Smooth all line angles and internal corners with a fine diamond bur to create rounded transitions
  • The junction between the pulp chamber walls and the occlusal floor should be rounded, not sharp
  • Final preparation should have no sharp angles, no unsupported enamel, and no irregularities

Step 6: Canal Orifice Sealing (if not already done)

  • Seal the root canal orifices with 2-3 mm of resin composite or RMGI
  • Light-cure thoroughly
  • Ensure the floor of the pulp chamber is now a clean, flat bonding surface
  • Etch the dentin floor for 15 seconds (if using self-etch adhesive, skip this step)

Step 7: Impression / Scanning

  • Place retraction cord to clearly define the cervical margin
  • For digital workflow (preferred with CAD/CAM zirconia): scan with an intraoral scanner, capturing the preparation, opposing arch, and occlusal registration
  • For conventional workflow: take a full-arch PVS impression with a light-body wash technique around the preparation margin
  • Fabricate a temporary restoration using a direct composite buildout over the preparation - do not use prefabricated temporaries that may unseat

Step 8: Try-In and Cementation

Try-in:
  • Seat the milled zirconia endocrown passively without force
  • Verify: full seating, no rocking, marginal gap < 100 μm, adequate occlusal clearance
Surface treatment of zirconia before cementation:
  • Sandblast the intaglio surface with 50 μm aluminum oxide at 2-3 bar pressure
  • Apply MDP-based primer (e.g., Clearfil Ceramic Primer, Z-Prime Plus) - critical for zirconia bonding
  • Do NOT use HF acid - zirconia is not etchable
Tooth surface preparation:
  • Clean cavity with pumice
  • Acid etch dentin with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds (if using etch-and-rinse adhesive)
  • Apply adhesive (e.g., Single Bond Universal)
Cementation:
  • Use a resin cement with MDP monomer (e.g., Panavia V5, RelyX Unicem 2) for zirconia
  • Seat with steady, even pressure
  • Remove excess cement before final cure
  • Light-cure all surfaces for 40+ seconds each

Summary of Key Preparation Parameters for Zirconia Endocrown (Molar)

ParameterSpecification
Occlusal reduction2.0 mm
Axial wall taper5-10° divergence
Margin designButt-joint or 0.5-1.0 mm chamfer
Margin locationSupragingival (preferred)
Pulp chamber depthMinimum 3 mm, ideal 4-5 mm
Chamber wall taper5-10° divergence
Canal orifice sealing2-3 mm composite/RMGI
Cement typeMDP-containing resin cement
Surface treatmentSandblasting + MDP primer

Key Differences from Conventional Zirconia Crown Prep

FeatureConventional CrownZirconia Endocrown
Retention sourceAxial wall height + taperPulp chamber extension
FerruleRequired (1.5-2 mm)Not applicable
Post & coreOften neededNot needed
Margin depthSub- to equigingivalSupragingival
Axial reduction1.0-1.5 mm all surfacesMinimal - only to remove defects
Canal entryAvoidedPulp chamber only (no canal entry)
This is a shared conversation. Sign in to Orris to start your own chat.