Giok KC, Veettil SK, Menon RK. Comparative effectiveness of fiber and metal posts in the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review with network meta-analysis.
J Prosthet Dent 2023:S0022-3913(23)00569-3. [PMID:
37827970 DOI:
10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.08.022]
[Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2023] [Revised: 08/24/2023] [Accepted: 08/25/2023] [Indexed: 10/14/2023]
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Different varieties of fiber and metal intraradicular posts have been used for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth with insufficient sound tooth structure. Evidence on the comparative efficacy of posts in a clinical setting is insufficient to provide clear clinical guidelines and recommendations.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to assess the comparative efficacy of fiber and metal posts used for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until November 2022. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42022384340). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed the comparative efficacy of fiber posts and metal posts for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Subgroup analyses were performed to compare all the varieties of fiber and metal posts. The types of posts were ranked according to their efficacy using the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) system. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.
RESULTS
Twenty-five articles were included in the quantitative analysis. Fiber posts (RR=0.15 [95% CI: 0.06, 0.33]) significantly prevented tooth fracture as compared with no posts. Prefabricated carbon fiber posts (RR=0.06 [95% CI: 0, 0.54]) ranked highest followed by custom glass fiber posts (RR=0.15 [95% CI: 0.04, 0.52]) and prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.22 [95% CI: 0.07, 0.62]) in the outcome of tooth fracture. Metal posts (RR=0.24 [95% CI: 0.12, 0.46]) ranked higher than fiber posts (RR=0.39 [95% CI: 0.27, 0.56]) in the outcome of debonding. Custom gold alloy posts (RR=0.12 [95% CI: 0.03, 0.48]), prefabricated gold alloy posts (RR=0.04 [95% CI: 0.00, 0.87]), and prefabricated titanium posts (RR=0.21 [95% CI: 0.10, 0.45]) had higher rankings in the outcome of debonding or loss of retention of a post followed by custom glass fiber posts (RR=0.37 [95% CI: 0.21, 0.63]) and prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.38 [95%CI: 0.25, 0.58]). Prefabricated glass fiber posts (RR=0.40 [95% CI: 0.20, 0.81]) had statistically significant differences in the outcome of secondary caries. The GRADE approach determined a moderate level of certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
The use of a fiber post when indicated results in reduced risk of tooth fracture as compared with no post. Prefabricated carbon fiber posts, prefabricated glass fiber posts, and custom glass fiber posts reveal a lower risk of tooth fracture. Overall, the use of prefabricated glass fiber posts had a lower risk of tooth fracture, debonding, and secondary caries. However, more trials with longer follow-up periods are recommended to enhance the certainty of evidence.
Collapse