The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post core systems - an in-vitro study

  • Makade, Chetana S. (Department of Conservative Dentistry, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre Nagpur) ;
  • Meshram, Ganesh K. (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Peoples College of Dental Sciences) ;
  • Warhadpande, Manjusha (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Government Dental College & Hospital Nagpur) ;
  • Patil, Pravinkumar G. (Department of Prosthodontics, Government Dental College & Hospital Nagpur)
  • Received : 2011.03.24
  • Accepted : 2011.04.22
  • Published : 2011.06.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. To compare the fracture resistance and the mode of failure of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-core systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS. Root canal treatment was performed on 40 maxillary incisors and the samples were divided into four groups of 10 each. For three experimental groups post space preparation was done and teeth were restored with cast post-core (Group B), stainless steel post with composite core (Group C) and glass fiber post with composite core using adhesive resin cement (Group D). Control group (A) samples were selected with intact coronal structure. All the samples were prepared for ideal abutment preparation. All the samples were subjected to a load of 0.5 mm/min at $130^{circ}$.until fracture occurred using the universal testing machine. The fracture resistance was measured and the data were analyzed statistically. The fracture above the embedded resin was considered to be favorable and the fracture below the level was considered as unfavorable. The statistical analysis of fracture resistance between different groups was carried out with t-test. For the mode of failure the statistical analysis was carried out by Kruskal-Wallis test and Chi-Square test. RESULTS. For experimental group Vs control group the fracture resistance values showed significant differences (P<.05). For the mode of failure the chi-square value is 16.1610, which means highly significant (P=.0009) statistically. CONCLUSION. Endodontically treated teeth without post core system showed the least fracture resistance demonstrating the need to reinforce the tooth. Stainless steel post with composite core showed the highest fracture resistance among all the experimental groups. Teeth restored with the Glass fiber post showed the most favorable fractures making them more amenable to the re-treatment.

Keywords

References

  1. Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:367-84. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0011-8532(01)00006-4
  2. Wadhwani KK, Shrivastava S, Nigam P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of various post systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2003;6:56-61.
  3. Galen WW, Mueller KI. Restoration of the Endodontically Treated Tooth. In Cohen S, Burns RC, editors: Pathways of the Pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis; Mosby; 2002. p. 765-96.
  4. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.123227
  5. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE, editors. Preparations for extensively damaged teeth. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago; Quintessence; 1997. p. 181-209.
  6. Martlnez-Insua A, da Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with a cast post and core or carbon-fiber post with a composite core. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:527-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70027-7
  7. Lovdahl PE, Nicholls JI. Pin-retained amalgam cores vs. castgold dowel-cores. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:507-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(77)90025-7
  8. Chan RW, Bryant RW. Post-core foundations for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:401-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90074-9
  9. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:103-16.
  10. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Collard EW, Pollack MH. Analysis of stress distribution by endodontic posts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;33:952-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(72)90187-9
  11. Torbjorner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:439-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80072-1
  12. Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiberreinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70103-9
  13. Rosentritt M, Furer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:595-601. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00548.x
  14. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence ofvertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:262-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70267-2
  15. Kantor ME, Pines MS. A comparative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:405-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(77)90094-4
  16. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:360-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.75
  17. 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
  18. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. 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
  19. 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
  20. Dean JP, Jeansonne BG, Sarkar N. In vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber post. J Endod 1998;24:807-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80007-1
  21. Anusavice KJ. Mechanical Properties of Dental Materials (Chapter 4). In: Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia; WB Saunders Co.; 1996. p. 49-74.
  22. Ottl P, Hahn L, Lauer HCh, Fay M. Fracture characteristics of carbon fibre, ceramic and non-palladium endodontic post systems at monotonously increasing loads. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:175-83. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00852.x
  23. Glassman GD, Serota KS. Endoesthetics. Rehabilitation of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:799-811, xii.

Cited by

  1. Micro-computerized tomographic analysis of premolars restored with oval and circular posts vol.18, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0982-7
  2. OCT Application to the Field of Posthodontics vol.35, pp.4, 2015, https://doi.org/10.2530/jslsm.jslsm-35_0034
  3. Quantitative Analysis of Defects at the Dentin-Post Space in Endodontically Treated Teeth vol.8, pp.6, 2015, https://doi.org/10.3390/ma8063268
  4. Mechanical properties of flared root canals restored with fiber post and chemically activated resin: study using push-out bond strength and fracture load tests vol.30, pp.13, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2016.1147126
  5. Influence of glass fibre post length and remaining dentine thickness on the fracture resistance of root filled teeth vol.50, pp.6, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12653
  6. Influence of root dentin treatment on the push-out bond strength of fibre-reinforced posts vol.31, pp.0, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2017.vol31.0029
  7. Nondestructive observation of teeth post core space using optical coherence tomography: a pilot study vol.19, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1117/1.JBO.19.4.046004
  8. Fracture resistance of structurally compromised and normal endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems: An in vitro study vol.9, pp.2, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.95234
  9. Effect of periodontal disease on the bond strength of fiber post cemented with different adhesive systems and resin luting agents vol.2, pp.None, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1186/2196-4351-2-11
  10. Effect of 1-Piece Post and Core Fabrication Techniques on Fracture Strength vol.13, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000223
  11. Resistencia a la fractura de dientes con raíces debilitadas usando postes con y sin relleno radicular. Revisión sistemática vol.19, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rodmex.2015.07.001
  12. Resistance to fracture of teeth with weakened roots using posts with and without root filling. A systematic review vol.19, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rodmex.2016.02.019
  13. Comparison of Different Post Systems for Fracture Resistance: An in vitro Study vol.18, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2017
  14. The Effects of Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation Design on the Fracture Strength of Endodontically Treated Teeth: Traditional Versus Conservative Preparation vol.44, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.01.020
  15. Fracture Strength of Endodontically treated Maxillary Central Incisors restored with Nickel Chromium and Nonprecious Gold Alloy Casting Post and Cores vol.19, pp.5, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2299
  16. Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980
  17. Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post vol.21, pp.12, 2020, https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980
  18. Fracture Resistance of Three Post Types in the Restoration of Anterior Primary Teeth vol.14, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602014010375
  19. Evaluation of the bubble mixture rate and the bond strength of post to dentin according to the technique of applying resin cement vol.12, pp.3, 2011, https://doi.org/10.2186/ajps.12.264
  20. Surface characterization and bonding properties of milled polyetheretherketone dental posts vol.108, pp.4, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00484-1
  21. Comparison of Fracture Resistance of Primary Incisors Restored with Different Intracanal-Reinforcement Materials vol.13, pp.None, 2021, https://doi.org/10.2147/ccide.s335333
  22. Structural integrity of extracted teeth restored using three different post-and-core systems: An in vitro comparative study vol.33, pp.2, 2011, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.01.007
  23. Microtensile bond strengths of short surface-coated intraradicular posts vol.35, pp.11, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2020.1837479
  24. Effect of Composite Core Materials on Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies vol.13, pp.14, 2011, https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13142251