Authors : Dr Nazish Baig; Dr Babita Yeshwante; Dr Sadashiv Daokar; Dr Isha Gotmare; Dr Shubhankar Nandkhedkar; Dr Nisha Salvi; Dr Apurva Mali; Dr. Vaishali Nandkhedkar

Volume/Issue : Volume 9 - 2024, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mr3e56p9

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/w53v4bvn

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/IJISRT24JUL1288

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background- In the past, conventional wisdom in post-endodontic care dictated the application of full coverage restorations to all teeth. However, recently a shift towards minimally invasive dentistry has gained traction among the restorative dentists. This change has been driven by accumulating evidence revealing that full coverage restorations often result in significant loss of healthy tooth structure. Consequently, clinicians and researchers have advocated for more conservative approaches to restoring endodontically treated teeth. These alternatives encompass partial coverage restorations such as inlays, onlays, overlays, and even simpler resin composite cores. While the allure of this minimally invasive strategy is evident, there are cases where greater coverage is necessary. Various factors, including tooth type, occlusal load, number of missing teeth, remaining healthy tooth structure, and tooth position, must be carefully considered before selecting an appropriate post- endodontic restoration.  Conclusion- The purpose of this review is to summarize the post- endodontic restorations, various new materials their indications depending on the remaining tooth structure and the teeth that needs to be restored. Light has been thrown on the recent advances in the prosthetic aspect in post-endodontic cases with minimally invasive dentistry in mind.

Keywords : Post Endodontic Restorations, Inlay, Overlay.

References :

1. Olcay K, Ataoglu H, Belli S. Evaluation of related factors in the failure of endodontically treated teeth: a cross-sectional study. Journal of endodontics. 2018 Jan 1;44(1):38-45.
2. Hargreaves KM, Cohen S. Cohen's pathways of the pulp. Elsevier; 2010 Jan 1.
3. Sukhija U, roy Rassawet R. Scholars Journal of Dental Sciences.
4. Franklin S. Weine: Endodontic Therapy 5th ed. st. Louis, Mosby. 1996:436-7.
5. Sukhija U, roy Rassawet R. Scholars Journal of Dental Sciences.
6. Rosenstiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J, Cockerill JJ. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. St. Louis. Mosby, Inc. 2001;2001:380-416.
7. Lovdahl PE, Nicholls JI. Pin-retained amalgam cores vs. cast-gold dowel-cores. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1977 Nov 1;38(5):507-14.
8. Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ. Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2002 Mar 1;87(3):256-63.
9. AFFAIRS AC. Dental amalgam: Update on safety concerns. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1998 Apr 1;129(4):494-503.
10. Plasmans PJ, Visseren LG, Vrijhoef MM, Käyser AF. In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. Journal of endodontics. 1986 Jan 1;12(9):382-7.
11. Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard LA. An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1980 May 1;43(5):511-5.
12. Plasmans PJ, Creugers NH, Mulder J. Long-term survival of extensive amalgam restorations. Journal of dental research. 1998 Mar;77(3):453-60.
13. Scurria MS, Shugars DA, Hayden WJ, Felton DA. General Dentists' Patterns of Restoring: Endodontically Treated Teeth. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1995 Jun 1;126(6):775-9.
14. Felton DA, Webb EL, Kanoy BE, Dugoni J. Threaded endodontic dowels: effect of post design on incidence of root fracture. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1991 Feb 1;65(2):179-87.
15. Kane JJ. Fracture resistance of amalgam coronalradicular restorations. J Prosthet Dent1990; 63:607.
16. Mendoza DB, Eakle WS. Retention of posts cemented with various dentinal bonding cements. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1994 Dec 1;72(6):591-4.
17. Machtou P, Sarfati P, Cohen AG. Post removal prior to retreatment. Journal of endodontics. 1989 Nov 1;15(11):552-4.
18. Schwartz NL, Whitsett LD, Berry TG, Stewart JL. Unserviceable crowns and fixed partial dentures: life-span and causes for loss of serviceability. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1970 Dec 1;81(6):1395-401.
19. Walton TR. A 10-year longitudinal study of fixed prosthodontics: clinical characteristics and outcome of single-unit metal-ceramic crowns. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 1999 Nov 1;12(6).
20. Mannocci F, Cowie J. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. British dental journal. 2014 Mar;216(6):341-6.
21. Pawar S, Lekhwani V, Ahmed H, Agrawal P, Barapatre P, Sharma P, Gupta S, Gupta B. Ceramic Inlays: A Case Report. Cureus. 2022 Sep;14(9).
22. Nirmala S, Goud S, Kumar N, Chukka RR, Reddy N. Ceramic onlay: A case report. Cureus. 2022 Dec;14(12).
23. Ojeda GD, Bresser RA, Wendler M, Gresnigt MM. Ceramic partial laminate veneers in anterior teeth: A literature review. Journal of Prosthodontic Research. 2023;68(2):246-54.
24. Ciobanu P, Manziuc MM, Buduru SD, Dudea D. Endocrowns–a literature review. Medicine and Pharmacy Reports. 2023 Oct;96(4):358.
25. Krisha Doshi, Subash Sharma. Clinical Practice Guidelines For Choice Of Post-Endodontic Restorations. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci. 2021;8(6): 2875-2879.