STRESS DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS ON FIBER AND COMPOSITE DIRECT RESTORATION AFTER ENDODONTIC TREATMENT USING FINITE ELEMENT METHOD

• Main Author: Selina, April
• Format: Final Project
• Language: Indonesia
• Subjects: Teknik (Rekayasa, enjinering dan kegiatan berkaitan)
• Online Access: https://digilib.itb.ac.id/gdl/view/82395
• Institution: Institut Teknologi Bandung

Endodontic treatment can cause significant weakening of tooth structure. Dental restorations after endodontic treatment aim to protect remaining tooth tissue, prevent recurrent infection of the root canal system, replace lost tooth structure and reduce the stress that occur on the tooth. Dental restorations after endodontic treatment are divided into direct restorations and indirect restorations. Direct restorations are the most commonly used restorations and the process is carried out directly on the tooth cavity. The material chosen for direct restorations is composite material. Composites have material properties that most closely resemble those of teeth. The composite will be reinforced with fiber to increase its strength. The strength of the composite and the success of the fiber restorations after endodontic treatment will be analyzed by modeling 3D models of the tooth and its restoration. The tooth models will be modified by removing the mesial side and remaining enamel on the lingual side for model 1 and model 2. Modifications for model 3 and model 4 by removing enamel and dentin on the mesial, lingual, half of buccal crown and half of distal crown. The modeling analysis is performed using finite element method to predict the potential for debonding and material failure. The result of this analysis can be an alternative for dentists to predict material failure and debonding potential in post-endodontic treatment restorations other than in vitro studies. Failure analysis was performed by looking at the distribution of maximum tensile stress, minimum compressive stress, and interfacial bonding values that occur in the model. Model 1 and model 2 have the potential to fail under tensile stress due to extreme loading. Some interface bonds on model 1 and model 2 components experienced debonding. Model 3 and model 4 did not experience material failure and debonding due to vertical (720 N) and lateral (200 N) loading on occlusal.