25 February 2021

---

Endocrown: a valid alternative to crown and post restoration for endodontically treated premolars and molars.

Simona Chirico

---

The use of endocrown in the rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth is becoming increasingly popular in recent years, especially thanks to the encouraging data in the literature. This type of restoration, in fact, is a valid alternative to the use of crown and post traditional one, as it allows for a more conservative procedure and a easy execution. 

Recently, a systematic review was published by Thomas et al, which examined the success of the endocrown used to restore both endodontically treated premolars and molars with a follow up between 3 and 19 years.

Materials and methods
This systematic review was carried out in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta- Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.20 This study was carried out at the University of Central Lancashire, United Kingdom and was registered with the PROSPERO database. Medline, Embase, Dentistry & Oral Sciences Source and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched through January 2020, supplemented with hand searching of additional relevant journals. 

Only 8 studies were selected.

Results
success rate of endocrown restoration in molars varied from 72.73% to 99.57% and in premolars ranged from 68.75% to 100%, with a follow-up range of 3–19 years. The pooled odds ratio and 95% confidence intervals for failure rates in molars compared to premolars in four studies selected for meta-analysis were 1.096 (95% CI: 0.280, 4.292). 

Conclusions
Endocrowns are a valid alternative to crowns and posts restorations.
Although the literature highlights that there are no statistically significant differences in the use of endocrowns on premolars and molars, in reality, by analyzing the data, it is possible to conclude that endocrowns for the restorations of endodontically treated molars work better than for endocrowns on premolars.

For further information: Comparing endocrown restorations on permanent molars and premolars: a systematic review and meta-analysis