Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Resin Fiber Postand Stainless Steel Post: An in Vitro Study


Affiliations
1 Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, DAV(C) Dental College & Hospital, Haryana, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, MM College of Dental Science & Research, Haryana, India
 

Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with post. Aims:This study aims to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with resin fiber and stainless steel post. Commercially available prefabricated resin fiber post (Dentsply Maillefer Easy Post), prefabricated stainless steel post (Coltene/Whaledent Parapost) were used. Methods & Material: Forty five maxillary central incisors were obturated and divided into 3 groups: Control Group (Group I) without any post (n = 15), Resin Fiber Post Group (Group II) (n = 15) and Stainless Steel Post Group (Group III) (n = 15). In all Groups except control group, post space was prepared; a post was cemented, and a core build-up was provided. All the specimens were subjected to compressive force under a universal testing machine until fracture. Statistical analysis used: The results were analyzed using the variable analysis test (ANOVA). Results: One-way analysis of variance revealed significant difference among test groups. The control group demonstrated highest fracture resistance (925.2183 N), followed by the resin fiber post group (486.7265 N) and stainless steel post group (423.539N). Conclusion: Teeth restored with resin fiber post showed higher fracture resistance values than prefabricated stainless steel post.

Keywords

Fiber Post, Parapost, Fracture Resistance.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:780–4.

  • Nandini VV, Venkatesh V. Current concepts in the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. J Ind Prosth Soc 2006;6(2):637.

  • Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosth Dent. 1994;71(6):565-7.

  • ShillingburgHT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence. 1998.

  • Caputo AA, Standlee JP. Restoration of endodontically involved teeth. In: Caputo AA, Standlee JP, editors. Biomechanics in Clinical Dentistry. Chicago: Quintessence 1987;185–203.

  • Qualtrough AJE, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Oper Dent 2003;28:86–91.

  • Maccari P., Conceiçao E., Nunes M. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three different prefabricated esthetic posts. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 2003;15(1):25-31.

  • Butz F., Lennon A. Survival Rate and Fracture Strength of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors with Moderate Defects Restored with Different Post-and-Core Systems: An in Vitro Study. International Journal of Prosthodontics 2001;14: 58-64.

  • Raygo C., Chai J. Fracture resistance and primary failure mode of endodontically treated teeth restored with a Carbon Fiber-Reinforced Resin post system in vitro. International Journal of Prosthodontics 2001;14: 141-45.

  • Turner C. The retention of dental posts. J Dent 1982;10: 154–65.

  • Hansen E, Caputo A. Cementing mediums and retentive characteristics of dowels. J Prosthet Dent.1974;32:551–7.

  • Chapman K, Worley J, von Fraunhofer J. Retention of prefabricated posts by cements and resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 54:649–52.

  • Newman M. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2003; 89(4):306-7.

  • Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth: post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:611-9.

  • Mendoza DB, Eakle WS, Kahl EA, Ho R. Root reinforcement with a resin bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:10-14.

  • Hornbrook DS, Hastings JH. Use of a bondable reinforcement fiber for post and core build up in an endodontically treated teeth: maximizing strength and aesthetics. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent 1995; 7:33-42.

  • Craig RG, Peyton FA. Elastic and mechanical properties of human dentin. J Dent Res 1958;37:710-18.

  • Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27:275-78.

  • Bergman B, Lundquist P, Sjogren U, Sundquist G. Restorative and endodontic results after treatment with cast posts and cores. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:10–15.

  • 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.

  • Libman WJ, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8:155–61.

  • Mendoza DB, Eakle WS, Kahl EA, Ho R. Root reinforcement with a resin bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:10-4.

  • Martinez 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.

  • Joshi S, Mukherjee A, Kheur M, Mehta A. Mechanical performance of endodontically treated teeth. Finite elements in analysis and design 2001; 37:587–601.

  • Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: a critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2003;14:13–29.

  • Artopoulou II, O'Keefe KL, Powers JM. Effect of core diameter and surface treatment on the retention of resin composite cores to prefabricated endodontic posts. J Prosthodont 2006;15:172–9.

  • Ceballos L, Garrido MA, Fuentes Vl. Mechanical characterization of resin cements used for luting fiber posts by nanoindentation. Dent Mater 2007;23:100–5.

  • Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R. Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 2007; 23:138–44.


Abstract Views: 278

PDF Views: 115




  • Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Resin Fiber Postand Stainless Steel Post: An in Vitro Study

Abstract Views: 278  |  PDF Views: 115

Authors

Vijay Singh
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, DAV(C) Dental College & Hospital, Haryana, India
Poonam Bogra
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, DAV(C) Dental College & Hospital, Haryana, India
Saurabh Gupta
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, DAV(C) Dental College & Hospital, Haryana, India
Navneet Kukreja
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, MM College of Dental Science & Research, Haryana, India
Neha Gupta
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, DAV(C) Dental College & Hospital, Haryana, India

Abstract


Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with post. Aims:This study aims to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with resin fiber and stainless steel post. Commercially available prefabricated resin fiber post (Dentsply Maillefer Easy Post), prefabricated stainless steel post (Coltene/Whaledent Parapost) were used. Methods & Material: Forty five maxillary central incisors were obturated and divided into 3 groups: Control Group (Group I) without any post (n = 15), Resin Fiber Post Group (Group II) (n = 15) and Stainless Steel Post Group (Group III) (n = 15). In all Groups except control group, post space was prepared; a post was cemented, and a core build-up was provided. All the specimens were subjected to compressive force under a universal testing machine until fracture. Statistical analysis used: The results were analyzed using the variable analysis test (ANOVA). Results: One-way analysis of variance revealed significant difference among test groups. The control group demonstrated highest fracture resistance (925.2183 N), followed by the resin fiber post group (486.7265 N) and stainless steel post group (423.539N). Conclusion: Teeth restored with resin fiber post showed higher fracture resistance values than prefabricated stainless steel post.

Keywords


Fiber Post, Parapost, Fracture Resistance.

References