The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지

COMPARISON OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF VARIOUS POST AND CORE MATERIALS

  • Ahn Seung-Geun (Department of Prosthodontics, Chonbuk National University) ;
  • Sorensen John A. (ODA Centennial Professor of Restorative Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Oregon Health Sciences University, School of Dentistry)
  • Published : 2003.06.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Statement of problem: Many kinds of post and core systems are in the market, but there are no clear selection criteria for them. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to compare the flexural strength and modulus of elasticity of core materials, and measure the bending strength of post systems made of a variety of materials. Material and Methods: The flexural strength and elastic modulus of thirteen kinds core buildup materials were measured on beams of specimens of $2.0{\times}2.0{\times}24{\pm}0.1mm$. Ten specimens per group were fabricated and loaded on an lnstron testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.25mm/min. A test span of 20 mm was used. The failure loads were recorded and flexural strength calculated with the measured dimensions. The elastic modulus was calculated from the slopes of the linear portions of the stress-stram graphs. Also nine kinds commercially available prefabricated posts made of various materials with similar nominal diameters, approximately 1.25mm, were loaded in a three-point bend test until plastic deformation or failure occurred. Ten posts per group were tested and the obtained data were anaylzed with analysis of variance and compared with the Tukey multiple comparison tests. Results: Clearfil Photo Core and Luxacore had flexural strengths approaching amalgam, but its modulus of elasticity was only about 15% of that of amalgam. The strengths of the glass ionomer and resin modified glass ionomer were very low. The heat pressed glass ceramic core had a high elastic modulus but a relatively low flexural strength approximating that of the lower strength composite resin core materials. The stainless steel, zirconia and carbon fiber post exhibited high bending strengths. The glass fiber posts displayed strengths that were approximately half of the higher strength posts. Conclusion: When moderate amounts of coronal tooth structure are to be replaced by a post and core on an anterior tooth, a prefabricated post and high strength, high elastic modulus core may be suitable. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS In this study several newly introduced post and core systems demonstrated satisfactory physical properties. However when the higher stress situation exists with only a minimal ferrule extension remaining a cast post and core or zirconia post and pressed core are desirable.

Keywords

References

  1. Lovdahl PE, Nicholls JI. Pin-retained amalgam cores vs. cast-gold dowel-cores. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:507-14 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(77)90025-7
  2. Guzy GE, Nicholls J. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:39-44 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7
  3. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: A study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:780-4 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90376-7
  4. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:28-35 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90176-8
  5. Assif D, Bitenski A, Pilo R, Oren E. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:36-40 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90237-I
  6. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad I. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:108-11 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1985.tb00571.x
  7. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:529-36 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90070-S
  8. Libman WJ, Nicholls JI, Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and core and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:155-61
  9. Isidor F, Brondrum K, Ravnholt G. The influence of post length and crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic loading of bovine teeth with pre fabricated titanium posts. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12:78-82
  10. Assif D, Oren E, Marshak BL,Aviv I. Photoelastic analysis of stress transfer by endodontically treated teeth to the supporting structure using different restorative techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:535-43 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(89)90272-2
  11. King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post developed for the restoration of pulpless teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1990;17:599-609 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb01431.x
  12. Torbjorner A, Karlsson S, Syverud M, Hensten-Pettersen A. Carbon fiber reinforced root canal posts. Mechanical and cytotoxic properties. Euro J Oral Sci 1996;104:605-11 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0722.1996.tb00149.x
  13. Isidor F, Odman P, Brendum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:131-6
  14. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:5-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70080-5
  15. Rudo DN, Karbhari BM. Physical behaviors of fiber reinforcement as applied to tooth stabilization. Dent Clin North Am 1999;43:7-35
  16. Hornbrook DS, Hastings JH. Use of a bondable reinforcement fiber for post and core build-up in an endodontically treated tooth: Maximizing strength and esthetics. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995;7:33-42
  17. Caputo AA, Standlee JP. Biomechanics in Clinical Dentistry. Carol Stream, III.: Quintessence; 1987.p.186-7
  18. Manning KE, Yu DC, Yu HC, Kwan EW. Factors to consider for predictable post and core buildups of endodontically treated teeth. Part II. Clinical application of basic concepts. J Can Dent Assoc 1995;61:696-707
  19. Sorensen JA, Mito WT. Rationale and clinical technique for esthetic restoration of endodontically treated teeth with the CosmoPost and IPS Empress Post System. Quintessence Dent Technol 1998;21:81-90
  20. Stockton LW, Williams PT, Clarke CT. Post retention and post/ core shear bond strength of four post systems. Oper Dent 2000;25:441-7
  21. Scherrer SS, deRijk WG. The fracture resistance of all-ceramic crowns on supporting structures with different elasticmoduli. Int J Prosthodont 1993;6:462-7
  22. Kwiatkowski SJ, Geller W. A preliminary consideration of the glass-ceramic dowel post and core. Int J Prosthodont 1989;2:51-5
  23. Meyenberg KH, Luthy H, Scharer P. Zirconia posts: A new all-ceramic concept for nonvital abutment teeth. J Esthet Dent 1995;7:73-80 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.1995.tb00565.x
  24. Schweiger M, Frank M, Cramer von Clausbruch S, Holand W, Rheinberger V. Mechanical properties of a pressed ceramic core to a zirconia post. Quintessence Dent Technol 1998;21:71-7
  25. Woehrien AE. Pin-retained restorations: Literature evaluation and clinical considerations. Gen Dent 1977;25:28-32
  26. Millstein PL, Ho J, Nathanson D. Retention between a serrated steel dowel and different core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:480-2 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90283-3
  27. Hormati AA, Denehy GE. Microleakage of pin-retained amalgam and composite resin bases. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:526-30 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90072-4
  28. Oliva RA, Lowe JA. Dimensional stability of silver amalgam and composite used as core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:554-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(87)90335-0
  29. Kanchanavasita W, Anstice HM, Pearson GJ. Water sorption characteristics of resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Biomaterials 1997;4:343-9
  30. Sindel J, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Crack formation of all-ceramic crowns dependent on different core build-up and luting materials. J Dent 1999;27:175-81 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00049-9
  31. Ziebert AJ, Dhuru VB. The fracture toughness of various core materials. J Prosthodont 1995;4:33-7 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.1995.tb00312.x
  32. Gateau P, Sabek M, Dailey B. Fatigue testing and microscopic evaluation of post and core restorations under artificial crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:341-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70090-9
  33. Cho GC, Kaneko LM, Donovan TE, White SN. Diametral and compressive strength of dental core materials. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82:272-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70079-X
  34. Bonilla ED, Mardirossian G, Caputo AA. Fracture toughness of various core build-up materials. J Prosthodont 2000;9:14-8 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2000.00014.x
  35. Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF. Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68:584-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(92)90370-P
  36. Nayyar A, Walton RE ,Leonard LA. An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1980;43:511-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(80)90322-4
  37. Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:151-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70103-9
  38. Langer B, Stein SD, Wagenberg B. Evaluation of root-resections. A 10-year study. J Periodontol 1981;52:719-22 https://doi.org/10.1902/jop.1981.52.12.719
  39. Bryant RW, Mahler DB. Modulus of elasticity in bending of composites and amalgams. J Prosthet Dent 1986;56:243-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90483-X
  40. O'Brien WJ. Dental Materials and Their Selection. Carol Stream, III: Quintessence; 1997. p.349-81
  41. Lambjerg-Hansen H, Asmussen E. Mechanical properties of endodontic posts. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:882-7 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00598.x
  42. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic post. J Dent 1999;27:275-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(98)00066-9
  43. Ross RS, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW. A comparison of strains generated during placement of five endodontic posts. J Endod 1991;17:450-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80136-1
  44. Purton DG, Payne JA. Comparison of carbon fiber and stainless steel root canal posts. Quintessence Int 1996;27:93-7
  45. Cormier CJ, Bums DR, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont 2001;10:26-36 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00026.x
  46. Isidor F, Brondrum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored with tapered individual cast or prefabricated parallel-sided posts. Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:257-61
  47. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC. Retention of endodontic dowels: Effects of cement, dowel length, and design. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:401-5 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(78)80156-5
  48. Tjan AHL, Whang S. Resistance to root fracture of dowel channels with various thickness of buccal dentin walls. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:496-500 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90633-X
  49. Sornkul E, Stannard JG. Strength of roots before and after endodontic treatment and restoration. J Endod 1992;18:440-3 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80845-9
  50. Mattison GD. Photoelastic stress analysis of castgold endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:407-11 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90075-0
  51. Tilk MA, Lommel TJ, Gerstein H. A study of mandibular and maxillary root widths to determine dowle size. J Endod 1979;5:79-82 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(79)80153-3
  52. Hoag EP, Dwyer TG. A comparative evaluation of three post and core techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:177-81 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90183-4
  53. Gelfand M, Goldman M, Sunderman EJ. Effect of complete veneer crowns on the compression strength of endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:635-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90131-8
  54. Andersson M, Razzoog ME, Oden A, Hegenbarth EA, Lang BR. Procera: a new way to achieve an all-ceramic crown. Quintessence Int 1998;29:285-96