Restor Dent Endod.  2013 Nov;38(4):215-221.

Retentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study

• Memarpour
• Shafiei F
• Abbaszadeh M

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To determine the retentive strength and failure mode of undercut composite post, glass fiber post and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable composite resin and resin-cement.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Coronal parts of 120 primary canine teeth were sectioned and specimens were treated endodontically. The teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 20). Prepared root canals received intracanal retainers with a short composite post, undercut composite post, glass fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement, and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement. After crown reconstruction, samples were tested for retentive strength and failure mode. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
There were statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.001). Mean bond strength in the undercut group was significantly greater than in the short composite post (p = 0.030), and the glass fiber post (p = 0.001) and the polyethylene fiber post group luted with resin-cement (p = 0.008). However, the differences between the undercut group and the groups with flowable composite as the luting agent were not significant (p = 0.068, p = 0.557). Adhesive failure was more frequent in the fiber post groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Although the composite post with undercutting showed the greatest resistance to dislodgement, fiber posts cemented with flowable composite resin provided acceptable results in terms of retentive strength and fracture mode.

Keyword

Dental restoration; Fiber posts; Primary teeth; Resin cement

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Composite Resins
Crowns
Cuspid
Dental Cements
Dental Pulp Cavity
Glass
Polyethylene
Resin Cements
Tooth
Tooth, Deciduous*
Adhesives
Composite Resins
Dental Cements
Polyethylene
Resin Cements

Reference

1. Holan G, Rahme MA, Ram D. Parents' attitude toward their children's appearance in the case of esthetic defects of the anterior primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009; 34:141–145.

2. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent. 2002; 24:511–516.

3. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent. 2005; 27:221–225.

4. Wanderley MT, Ferreira SL, Rodrigues CR, Rodrigues Filho LE. Primary anterior tooth restoration using posts with macroretentive elements. Quintessence Int. 1999; 30:432–436.

5. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2004; 28:187–192.

6. Grewal N, Seth R. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2008; 26:141–148.

7. Pinheiro SL, Bönecker MJ, Duarte DA, Imparato JC, Oda M. Bond strength analysis of intracanal posts used in anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2006; 31:32–34.

8. Judd PL, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Yacobi R. Composite resin short-post technique for primary anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 1990; 120:553–555.

9. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, Wanderley MT, Correa MS. Resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int. 2004; 35:689–692.

10. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107:e60–e64.

11. Memarpour M, Shafiei F. Restoration of primary anterior teeth using intracanal polyethylene fibers and composite: an in vivo study. J Adhes Dent. 2013; 15:85–91.

12. Island G, White GE. Polyethylene ribbon fibers: a new alternative for restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2005; 29:151–156.

13. Jain M, Singla S, Bhushan B, Kumar S, Bhushan A. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior primary teeth using polyethylene fiber with two different approaches. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2011; 29:327–332.

14. Motisuki C, Santos-Pinto L, Giro EM. Restoration of severely decayed primary incisors using indirect composite resin restoration technique. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005; 15:282–286.

15. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Sunny R. Glass fiber reinforced composite resin as an intracanal post-a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008; 32:207–210.

16. Metha D, Gulati A, Basappa N, Raju OS. Esthetic rehabilitation of severely decayed primary incisors using glass fiber reinforced composite: a case report. J Dent Child (Chic). 2012; 79:22–25.

17. Gujjar KR, Indushekar KR. Comparison of the retentive strength of 3 different posts in restoring badly broken primary maxillary incisors. J Dent Child (Chic). 2010; 77:17–24.

18. Pithan S, Vieira Rde S, Chain MC. Tensile bond strength of intracanal posts in primary anterior teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002; 27:35–39.

19. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Reconstruction of nonvital teeth using direct fiber-reinforced composite resin: a pilot clinical study. J Adhes Dent. 2009; 11:71–78.

20. Karbhari VM, Wang Q. Influence of triaxial braid denier on ribbon-based fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater. 2007; 23:969–976.

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

22. El-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, Eltanty A, Abbasi K, Habib N. Gingival microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent. 2007; 32:298–305.

23. Kececi AD, Ureyen Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro push-out bond strengths of four fiber-reinforced composite post systems and 2 luting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008; 105:121–128.

24. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation modes. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29:257–262.

25. Bonfante G, Kaizer OB, Pegoraro LF, do Valle AL. Tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts luted with different cements. Braz Oral Res. 2007; 21:159–164.

26. Sen D, Poyrazoglu E, Tuncelli B. The retentive effects of pre-fabricated posts by luting cements. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31:585–589.

27. Kim SR, Yum J, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of push-out bond strength of post according to cement application methods. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2010; 35:479–485.

28. Kim JH, Park SH, Park JW, Jung IY. Influence of post types and sizes on fracture resistance in the immature tooth model. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2010; 35:257–266.

29. Ozel E, Soyman M. Effect of fiber nets, application techniques and flowable composites on microleakage and the effect of fiber nets on polymerization shrinkage in class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:174–180.

30. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent. 2001; 26:60–69.

31. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as 'filled adhesives': literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int. 1999; 30:249–257.

32. Kim MH, Kim HJ, Cho YG. Effect of curing methods of resin cements on bond strength and adhesive interface of post. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2009; 34:103–112.

33. Kimmel SS. Restoration and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth with a polyethylene ribbon and prefabricated fiberglass post. Gen Dent. 2000; 48:700–706.

34. Mannocci F, Innocenti M, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Confocal and scanning electron microscopic study of teeth restored with fiber posts, metal posts, and composite resins. J Endod. 1999; 25:789–794.

35. Deliperi S. Direct fiber-reinforced composite restoration in an endodontically-treated molar: a three-year case report. Oper Dent. 2008; 33:209–214.

36. Braga NM, Paulino SM, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Vansan LP. Removal resistance of glass-fiber and metallic cast posts with different lengths. J Oral Sci. 2006; 48:15–20.