Restor Dent Endod.  2015 Aug;40(3):229-235. 10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.229.

Fracture resistance of upper central incisors restored with different posts and cores

• Rezaei Dastjerdi M
• Amirian Chaijan K
• Tavanafar

• KMID: 2396467
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2015.40.3.229

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
To determine and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored with different posts and cores.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-eight upper central incisors were randomly divided into four groups: cast post and core (group 1), fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post and composite core (group 2), composite post and core (group 3), and controls (group 4). Mesio-distal and bucco-lingual dimensions at 7 and 14 mm from the apex were compared to ensure standardization among the groups. Twelve teeth were prepared for crown restoration (group 4). Teeth in other groups were endodontically treated, decoronated at 14 mm from the apex, and prepared for posts and cores. Resin-based materials were used for cementation in groups 1 and 2. In group 3, composite was used directly to fill the post space and for core build-up. All samples were restored by standard metal crowns using glass ionomer cement, mounted at 135degrees vertical angle, subjected to thermomechanical aging, and then fractured using a universal testing machine. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyze the data.
RESULTS
Fracture resistance of the groups was as follows: Control (group 4) > cast post and core (group 1) > fiber post and composite core (group 2) > composite post and core (group 3). All samples in groups 2 and 3 fractured in restorable patterns, whereas most (58%) in group 1 were non-restorable.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, FRC posts showed acceptable fracture resistance with favorable fracture patterns for reconstruction of upper central incisors.

Keyword

Cast post and core; Fiber-reinforced composite; Fracture resistance; Thermo-mechanical aging

MeSH Terms

Aging
Cementation
Crowns
Glass Ionomer Cements
Incisor*
Tooth
Glass Ionomer Cements

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Study set-up (values are in mm).

Reference

1. Hansen EK, Asmussen E, Christiansen NC. In vivo fractures of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with amalgam. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990; 6:49–55.

2. Qing H, Zhu Z, Chao Y, Zhang W. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance of anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber and zircon posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97:93–98.

3. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Retention and failure morphology of prefabricated posts. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:307–312.

4. Nergiz I, Schmage P, Ozcan M, Platzer U. Effect of length and diameter of tapered posts on the retention. J Oral Rehabil. 2002; 29:28–34.

5. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 90:556–562.

6. Duret B, Reynaud M, Duret F. New concept of corono-radicular reconstruction: the Composipost (1). Chir Dent Fr. 1990; 60:131–141.

7. Duret B, Reynaud M, Duret F. A new concept of coronoradicular reconstruction, the Composipost (2). Chir Dent Fr. 1990; 60:69–77.

8. Fredriksson M, Astbäck J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80:151–157.

9. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent. 2000; 13:9B–13B.

10. Strassler HE, Cloutier PC. A new fiber post for esthetic dentistry. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2003; 24:742–748.

11. Fovet Y, Pourreyron L, Gal JY. Corrosion by galvanic coupling between carbon fiber posts and different alloys. Dent Mater. 2000; 16:364–373.

12. Lidén C, Norberg K. Nickel on the Swedish market. Follow-up after implementation of the Nickel Directive. Contact Dermatitis. 2005; 52:29–35.

13. Vichi A, Vano M, Ferrari M. The effect of different storage conditions and duration on the fracture strength of three types of translucent fiber posts. Dent Mater. 2008; 24:832–838.

14. Monticelli F, Ferrari M, Toledano M. Cement system and surface treatment selection for fiber post luting. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2008; 13:E214–E221.

15. Varvara G, Perinetti G, Di Iorio D, Murmura G, Caputi S. In vitro evaluation of fracture resistance and failure mode of internally restored endodontically treated maxillary incisors with differing heights of residual dentin. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 98:365–372.

16. Naumann M, Preuss A, Rosentritt M. Effect of incomplete crown ferrules on load capacity of endodontically treated maxillary incisors restored with fiber posts, composite build-ups, and all-ceramic crowns: an in vitro evaluation after chewing simulation. Acta Odontol Scand. 2006; 64:31–36.

17. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 81:262–269.

18. Zhang XH, Tong D, Wang XZ. The measurement and comparison of shear fracture strength and shear bond strength between carbon fiber post and some other posts. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2003; 38:339–341.

19. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent. 2001; 29:427–433.

20. 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.

21. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Vichi A, Mason PN, Radovic I, Tay F. Long-term retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent. 2007; 20:287–291.

22. Jung RE, Kalkstein O, Sailer I, Roos M, Hämmerle CH. A comparison of composite post buildups and cast gold post-and-core buildups for the restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20:63–69.

23. Dallari A, Rovatti L. Six years of in vitro/in vivo experience with Composipost. Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl. 1996; S57–S63.

24. Duret B, Duret F, Reynaud M. Long-life physical property preservation and postendodontic rehabilitation with the Composipost. Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl. 1996; S50–S56.

25. Cormier CJ, Burns DR, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont. 2001; 10:26–36.

26. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater. 2006; 22:477–485.

27. Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, Dellavia C, Tartaglia GM. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31:18–22.

28. Bolay Ş, Öztürk E, Tuncel B, Ertan A. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with or without post systems. J Dent Sci. 2012; 7:148–153.

29. Maccari PC, Cosme DC, Oshima HM, Burnett LH Jr, Shinkai RS. Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with flared root canals and restored with different post systems. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007; 19:30–36.

30. Rosentritt M, Fürer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. J Oral Rehabil. 2000; 27:595–601.

31. Maccari PC, Conceição EN, Nunes MF. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three different prefabricated esthetic posts. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003; 15:25–30.

32. Nothdurft FP, Seidel E, Gebhart F, Naumann M, Motter PJ, Pospiech PR. Influence of endodontic posts on the fracture behavior of crowned premolars with class II cavities. J Dent. 2008; 36:287–293.

33. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14:355–363.

34. Drummond JL, Bapna MS. Static and cyclic loading of fiber-reinforced dental resin. Dent Mater. 2003; 19:226–231.

35. Juloski J, Radovic I, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Ferrule effect: a literature review. J Endod. 2012; 38:11–19.

36. Keum HJ, Yoo HM. Effect of surface treatments of fiber posts on bond strength to composite resin cores. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2010; 35:173–179.

37. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89:360–367.

38. Mireku AS, Romberg E, Fouad AF, Arola D. Vertical fracture of root filled teeth restored with posts: the effects of patient age and dentine thickness. Int Endod J. 2010; 43:218–225.

39. Soares CJ, Pizi EC, Fonseca RB, Martins LR. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res. 2005; 19:11–16.

40. Libman WJ, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8:155–161.