Stress Distribution of Endodontically Treated Tooth MOD Cavity Restored with Ribbon Fiber-Reinforced Composite (Wallpapering Technique) Using Finite Element Method

Figures & data

Figure 1 Solid 3D model of mandibular first molar. (a) occlusal, (b) lingual, (c) buccal, (d) mesial, and (e) distal surface.

Table 1 Mechanical Properties of Tooth and Restorative Material

Material	Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)	Poisson’s Ratio
Enamel^Citation15	50.2	0.30
Dentin^Citation16	17.8	0.31
Periodontal Ligament^Citation15	0.05	0.45
Gutta Percha^Citation17	0.0069	0.45
Alveolar bone^Citation18	13.7	0.30
Cancellous bone^Citation18	1.37	0.30
Polyethylene Fiber (Ribbon THM)-Longitudinal (X,Y)^Citation19	23.6	0.32
E-Glass Fiber Bidirectional (Everstick Net)-Longitudinal (X,Y)^Citation20	8.87	0.35
Packable composite resin (Grandio, VOCO)^Citation21	20.4	0.33
Flowable composite resin (G-aenial Universal Flow, G(III))^Citation22	7.9	0.30

Table 2 Mechanical Properties of Interface^23–28

Interface	Tensile Bond Strength (MPa)	Shear Bond Strength (MPa)
Enamel-Packable Composite	42.8	23.49
Dentin-Packable Composite	32.3	20.83
Dentin-Ribbon fiber polyethylene	28.3	25.92
Dentin-Ribbon fiber e-glass	27.9	28.05

Figure 2 Stress distribution after vertical loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity and polyethylene fiber reinforced composite on (a) enamel, (b) dentin, (c) packable composite, (d) polyethylene fiber wallpapering the cavity wall, and (e) polyethylene fiber wallpapering the cavity floor.

Figure 3 Stress distribution of interface between enamel and packable composite, after vertical loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity+Polyethylene fiber reinforced composite: (a) occlusal view, (b) buccal view of packable composite.

Figure 4 Stress distribution after lateral loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity and polyethylene fiber reinforced composite on (a) enamel, (b) dentin, (c) packable composite, (d) polyethylene fiber wallpapering the cavity wall, and (e) polyethylene fiber wallpapering the cavity floor.

Figure 5 Stress distribution after vertical loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity and e-glass fiber reinforced composite on (a) enamel, (b) dentin, (c) packable composite, (d) e-glass fiber wallpapering the cavity wall, and (e) e-glass fiber wallpapering the cavity floor.

Figure 6 Stress distribution of interface between enamel-packable composite and dentin-fiber e-glass wallpapering the cavity floor after vertical loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity+ e-glass fiber reinforced composite: (a) occlusal of the tooth, (b) buccal of packable composite, (c) occlusal of fiber, and (d) e-glass fiber wallpapering the cavity floor.

Figure 7 Stress distribution after lateral loading on lower first molar with MOD cavity and e-glass fiber reinforced composite on (a) enamel, (b) dentin, (c) packable composite, (d) e-glass fiber wallpapering the cavity wall, and (e) e-glass fiber wallpapering the cavity floor.

Table 3 Principal Stress for Each Component of Composite Restoration Reinforced with Polyethylene Fiber

Components	Max. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Min. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Max. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Min. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation
	Vertical Load		Lateral Load
Enamel	32.36 (80.7%)	100.41 (38.5%)	17.93 (44.7%)	57.67 (22.1%)
Dentin	39.19 (78.7%)	72.93 (31.2%)	31.42 (63.1%)	33.02 (14.1%)
Packable composite	51.66 (71.7%)	147.60 (33.6%)	32.71 (45.4%)	58.00 (13.2%)
Fiber polyethylene on the wall	4.45 (9.0%)	35.22 (18.5%)	7.46 (15.1%)	16.72 (8.8%)
Fiber polyethylene on the floor	14.64 (29.6%)	79.76 (41.9%)	14.64 (29.6%)	11.30 (5.9%)

Table 4 Principal Stress for Each Component of Composite Restoration Reinforced with e-Glass Fiber

Components	Max. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Min. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Max. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation	Min. Principal Stress (MPa)/% Utilisation
	Vertical Load		Lateral Load
Enamel	31.34 (78.1%)	101.61 (38.9%)	19.03 (47.5%)	62.22 (23.8%)
Dentin	39.50 (79.3%)	74.47 (31.9%)	31.36 (62.9%)	33.18 (14.2%)
Packable composite	48.12 (66.9%)	128.53 (29.3%)	32.20 (44.7%)	58.00 (13.2%)
Fiber e-glass on the wall	3.26 (12.2%)	19.64 (29.4%)	4.97 (18.7%)	7.22 (10.8%)
Fiber e-glass on the floor	6.70 (25.2%)	45.13 (67.5%)	11.73 (44.1%)	12.31 (18.4%)

Table 5 Value of Damage Initiation Criterion of Polyethylene Ribbon Fiber-Reinforced Composite

Interfaces	Max Debonding Criterion	Failure	Max Debonding Criterion	Failure
	Vertical Load		Lateral Load
Enamel–packable composite	1,58	Yes	0,80	No
Dentin–packable composite	0,53	No	0,08	No
Dentin–Fiber polyethylene on the wall	0.15	No	0,05	No
Dentin–Fiber polyethylene on the floor	0,47	No	0,30	No

Notes: Bold font means the interface failure/debonding occurs.

Table 6 Value of Damage Initiation Criterion of e-Glass Ribbon Fiber-Reinforced Composite

Interfaces	Max Debonding Criterion	Failure	Max Debonding Criterion	Failure
	Vertical Load		Lateral Load
Enamel–packable composite	1,59	Yes	0,81	No
Dentin–packable composite	0,54	No	0,10	No
Dentin–Fiber e-glass on the wall	0,22	No	0,12	No
Dentin–Fiber e-glass on the floor	1,09	Yes	0,6	No

Notes: Bold font means the interface failure/debonding occurs.

Barcelos LM, Bicalho AA, Veríssimo C, Rodrigues MP, Soares CJ. Stress distribution, tooth remaining strain, and fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored without or with one or two fiberglass posts and direct composite resin. Oper Dent. 2017;42(6):646–657. doi:10.2341/16-224-L

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Cheron RA, Marshall SJ, Goodis HE, Peters OA. Nanomechanical Properties of Endodontically Treated Teeth. J Endod. 2011;37(11):1562–1565. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.006

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Elkholy MMA, Nawar NN, Ha WN, Saber SM, Kim HC. Impact of Canal Taper and Access Cavity Design on the Life Span of an Endodontically Treated Mandibular Molar: a Finite Element Analysis. J Endod. 2021;47(9):1472–1480. doi:10.1016/j.joen.2021.06.009

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Navimipour EJ, Firouzmandi M, Mirhashemi FS. Finite Element Analysis of the Endodontically-treated Maxillary Premolars restored with Composite Resin along with Glass Fiber Insertion in Various Positions. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2015;16(4):284–290. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1677

 PubMedGoogle Scholar

Asopa S, Mandava J, Chalasani U, Anwarullah A, Ravi R. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored with resin composites. Indian J Conserv Endod. 2017;2(3):89–97.

 Google Scholar

Lukarcanin J, Sadikoǧlu İS, Yaşa B, Türkün LŞ, Türkün M, Galli C. Comparison of Different Restoration Techniques for Endodontically Treated Teeth. Int J Biomater. 2022;2022:1–7. doi:10.1155/2022/6643825

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Halaçoglu DM, Yamanel K. The effects of different base materials on the stress distribution of the endodontically treated teeth: 3D FEA. Cumhur Dent J. 2019;22(1):56–65. doi:10.7126/cumudj.453467

 Google Scholar

Prabhakar A, Shrikant L, Nadig B. Stress analysis in maxillary incisor following fragment reattachment: a finite element analysis. J Dent Allied Sci. 2016;5(1):7. doi:10.4103/2277-4696.185188

 Google Scholar