Direct or Indirect Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Central Incisors with Class III Defects? Composite vs Veneer or Crown Restoration

Purpose The aim of this ex-vivo study was to evaluate the load capacity of direct or indirect endodontically restored maxillary central incisors with Class III defects, with or without glass-fiber posts. Materials and methods Seventy-two extracted human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and bi-proximal Class III cavities were prepared. Specimens were randomly allocated to six groups (n = 12): direct restoration with composite (C); direct restoration with composite and additional glass-fiber post (CP); ceramic veneer restoration (V), ceramic veneer restoration and additional glass-fiber post (VP), ceramic crown restoration (Cr), ceramic crown restoration and additional glass-fiber post (CrP). Specimens were exposed to thermomechanical loading (TML: 1.2 million cycles, 1 to 50 N; 6000 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C for 1 min each), and subsequently linearly loaded until failure (Fmax [N]) at an angle of 135 degrees 3 mm below the incisal edge on the palatal side. Statistical tests were performed using the Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-Test. Results During dynamic loading by TML, one early failure occurred in group C, CP, and CrP. Subsequent linear loading resulted in mean fracture load values [N] of C = 483 ± 219, CP = 536 ± 281, V = 908 ± 293, VP = 775 ± 333, Cr = 549 ± 258, CrP = 593 ± 259. The Kruskal-Wallis test showed significant differences of load capacity between groups (p Conclusion Endodontically treated maxillary central incisors with Class III defects directly restored with composite are as loadable as indirect crown restorations. Compared to full-coverage restorations, less invasive veneers appear to be more beneficial. Additional placement of glass-fiber posts shows no positive effect.