A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance in Endodontically Treated Teeth Reinforced by Novel Hybrid Post and with Various Pre-Fabricated Post Techniques: An In-Vitro Study
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: Teeth with a final post-endodontic restoration cannot support significant structural loss brought on by fracture, caries, big pre-existing restorations, or aggressive cavity preparation. Post and core restoration allows for the restoration of such teeth. Reduced dentine size, moisture, and compromise on supporting structures such the oblique bridge, marginal ridges, and pulp chamber roof result in a reduction in their resistance because of structural loss. Under such circumstances, choosing a good post-endodontic restorative material can be difficult.
Materials and Methods:
In terms of post-treatment procedures, 40 single-rooted decoronated mandibular premolar teeth were endodontically treated and randomly divided into four groups. As a control, the first group had a composite core but no post; groups two and three had prefabricated metal threaded posts; group four had prefabricated hybrid posts. The posts were affixed using dual-cure resin cement, and the core build-up material was nano composite. Each group's core structure was standardised, and metal crowns of the same size were used to reinforce it. A universal testing machine was used to test every specimen, and the fracture load was tabulated.
Statistical analysis used: one way ANOVA analysis
Results: The highest failure load was found with prefabricated hybrid post. This group had significantly higher load compared to other post groups. Followed by prefabricated fibre post and prefabricated metal threaded post.
Conclusions: Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth reinforced with hybrid post showed significant values when compared to that of prefabricated glass fiber posts, prefabricated threaded post and control teeth.
Article Details
The Medical Research Archives grants authors the right to publish and reproduce the unrevised contribution in whole or in part at any time and in any form for any scholarly non-commercial purpose with the condition that all publications of the contribution include a full citation to the journal as published by the Medical Research Archives.
References
2. Heydecke G, Peters MC. The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:380-386.
3. Sarkis-onofre R, pereira-cenci T, Opdam N, Demarco F. Preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth: findings from a survey with dentists. Braz Oral Res 2014; 29:1-6.
4. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Dec;90(6):556-62.
5. Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J 1995; 28:12-18.
6. Turner CH. The utilization of roots to carry post-retained crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9:193-202.
7. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett L, Brackett S. Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago: Quintessence; 1997.
8. Baraban DJ. The restoration of endodontically treated teeth: an update. J Prosthet Dent 1988;59:553-8.
9. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:419-24.
10. Franklin S. Weine endodontic therapy. Therapie Publisher St. Louis: Mosby Collection 6th ed.:553-61.
11. Anusavice KJ, Kakar K, Ferree N. Which mechanical and physical testing methods are relevant for predicting the clinical performance of ceramic-based dental prostheses? Clin Oral Implants Res. 2007;3(Suppl.):218–231.
12. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7.
13. . Trabert KC, Caputo AA, Abou-Rass M. Tooth fracture-a comparison of endodontic and restorative treatments. J Endod 1978;4:341-5
14. Tilk MA, Lommel TJ, Gerstein H. A study of mandibular and maxillary root widths to determine dowel size. J Endod 1979;5:79-82.
15. Mattison GD. Photoelastic stress analysis of cast gold endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:407-11.
16. Pilo R, Tamse A. Residual dentin thickness in mandibular pre-molars prepared with gates glidden and ParaPost drills. J Prosthet Dent 2000;83: 617-23.
17. Lloyd PM, Palik JF. The philosophies of dowel diameter preparation: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:32-6.
18. Stern N, Hirshfeld Z. Principles of preparing endodontically treated teeth for dowel and core restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1973;30:162-5.
19. Halle EB, Nicholls JI, Hassel HJ. An in-vitro comparison of retention between a hollow post and core and a custom hollow post and core. J Endod 1984;10:96-100
20. Gómez-Polo M, Llidó B, Rivero A, Del Río J, Celemín. A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores. J Dent, 2010
21. Gutmann JL. The dentin- root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67: 458-67.
22. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:419-24.
23. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC. Retention of endodontic dowels: effect of cement, dowel length, diameter and design. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:400-5
24. Holmes DC, Diaz-Arnold AM, Leary JM. Influence of post dimension on stress distribution in dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:140-7.
25. Turner CH. Cement distribution during post cementation. J Dent 1981;9: 231-9.
26. Peters MC, Poort HW, Farah JW, Craig RC. Stress analysis of a tooth restored with a post and core. J Dent Res 1983;62:760-3