Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth: Influence of the post systems and cements

Fracture load assessment of digitally fabricated post and prefabricated fibre post in endodontically treated teeth

BACKGROUND

Endodontically treated teeth are structurally more susceptible to root fractures. Proper tooth restorations with digitally fabricated or fibre post following endodontic therapy is essential to restore function and esthetics.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the fracture load of digitally fabricated and prefabricated fibre posts in endodontically treated teeth.

METHODS

Sixty extracted human single rooted teeth were selected. The crowns were sectioned at the cement-enamel junction to standardize the remaining root length at 15 mm from the apices. Cleaning, shaping and obturation was done using conventional step back technique to an ISO K-file size 40. The roots were divided into two groups of 30 samples each: Group S: teeth reinforced with digitally fabricated posts; Group F: teeth reinforced with fibre posts. Each group was further divided into three subgroups (S7, S9, S12, F7, F9, F12) based on lengths 7, 9 and 12 mm at which the posts were cemented. Composite resin core was fabricated and prepared to receive a complete metal crown. Universal testing machine was used to measure the compressive load required to fracture the teeth.

RESULTS

The highest fracture resistance of 1532N was observed with fibre posts at 12 mm of post space length followed by digitally fabricated post 1398N at 12 mm, but the difference was not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The highest fracture resistance was observed in the teeth restored with fibre posts with 12 mm length and the lowest with digitally fabricated post with 7 mm length. As the length of post increases irrespective of type of post fracture resistance increased.

Influence of glass fiber post design and luting cements on ease of post removal and fracture strength of endodontically retreated teeth: An in vitro study

Aims and Objectives:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the time needed to remove two types of glass fiber posts cemented with two different cements and removed with two different techniques and to evaluate the fracture strength of teeth after post removal.

Materials and Methods:

Root canal treatment was completed in 80 extracted single-rooted premolars and the teeth were decoronated. Following canal preparation, the roots were coated with polysiloxane impression material and embedded in acrylic resin cubes. The specimens were randomly divided into eight experimental groups (n = 10) based on the type of fiber post inserted: Reforpost (R) or Contec Blanco (C); luting cement: Multilink-N/self-etch (M) or G-Cem/self-adhesive (G); technique of removal: Peeso reamer (P); or ultrasonic (U). The posts were removed with respective technique under magnification and the time (in seconds) of post removal was determined. Following post removal, the fracture strength of the specimens was determined using a universal testing machine. The mode of failure was also determined. Data were analyzed by three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s post hoc test, t test, and correlation. Chi-square analysis was performed to compare the failure mode. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05.

Results:

The post and cement types had an influence in post removal time (P < 0.05). There was no role of post or cement types on the fracture strength of teeth after post removal with either technique (P > 0.05). A weak negative correlation was found between the post removal time and fracture resistance for both Peeso reamer (r = –0.373) and ultrasonic (r = –0.177) techniques. Both techniques of post removal produced a majority of favorable failures (P > 0.05).

Conclusion:

The type of post and luting cement plays a significant role in ease of post removal by Peeso reamer or ultrasonic technique. Post-removal technique had no effect on the fracture strength of teeth. Parallel serrated fiber post luted with self-etch resin cements was difficult to remove as compared with parallel smooth surface post luted with self-etch or self-adhesive resin cement.