Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2022)
Volume  6 (2021)
Volume  5 (2020)
Volume  4 (2019)
Volume  3 (2018)
Volume  2 (2017)
Volume  1 (2016)
Related articles

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 2 ( July-December, 2019 ) > List of Articles

REVIEW ARTICLE

Ferrule: A Literature Review

Ashok J Abraham, Chinnu R Koshy, Shankar Narayanan, Veni Ashok, Rajasekaran M Sundaran, Sokkalingam M Venkatesan

Keywords : Crown margin, Dowel, Ferrule, Post and core, Shoulder

Citation Information : Abraham AJ, Koshy CR, Narayanan S, Ashok V, Sundaran RM, Venkatesan SM. Ferrule: A Literature Review. J Oper Dent Endod 2019; 4 (2):92-95.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10047-0078

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Statement of problem: Endodontically treated teeth are known to have reduced structural strength. Glass fiber posts may influence fracture resistance and should be evaluated. Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of glass fiber post length on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Materials and methods: Forty intact human maxillary canines were selected and divided into four groups, the control group consisting of teeth restored with a custom gold cast post and core, with a length of two thirds of the root. Other groups received prefabricated glass fiber posts in different lengths: group I/III, removal of one third of the sealing material (5 mm); group I/II, removal of one half of the sealing material (7.5 mm); and group II/III, removal of two thirds of the sealing material (10 mm). All the posts were cemented with resin cement, and the specimens with glass fiber posts received a composite resin core. All the specimens were restored with a metal crown and submitted to a compressive load until failure occurred. The results were evaluated by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the all pairwise multiple comparison procedures (Tukey honestly significantly difference test; α = 0.05). Results: The ANOVA showed significant differences among the groups (p < 0.002). The Tukey test showed that the control group presented significantly higher resistance to static load than the other groups (control group, 634.94 N; group I/III, 200.01 N; group I/II, 212.17 N; and group II/III, 236.08 N). Although teeth restored with a cast post and core supported a higher compressive load, all of them fractured in a catastrophic manner. For teeth restored with glass fiber posts, the failure occurred at the junction between the composite resin core and the root. Conclusion: The length of glass fiber posts did not influence fracture load, but cast post and cores that extended two thirds of the root length had significantly greater fracture resistance than glass fiber posts.

PDF Share
  1. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136(5):611–619. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2005.0232.
  2. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30(5):289–301. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001.
  3. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, et al. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature—part 1. Composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int 2007;38(9):733–743.
  4. Cheung GS. Endodontic failures - changing the approach. Int Dent J 1996;46(3):131–138.
  5. Stankiewicz NR, Wilson PR. The ferrule effect: a literature review. Int Endod J 2002;35(7):575–581. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00557.x.
  6. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63:529–536. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90070-s.
  7. Assif D, Bitenski A, Pilo R, et al. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69(1):36–40. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90237-i.
  8. Mamoun JS. On the ferrule effect and the biomechanical stability of teeth restored with cores, posts, and crowns. Eur J Dent 2014;;8(2):281–286. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.130639.
  9. Isidor F, Brøndum K, Ravnholt G, et al. The influence of post length and crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic loading of bovine teeth with prefabricated titanium posts. Int J Prosthodont 1999;12(1):78–82.
  10. Libman WJ, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont 1995;8(2):155–161.
  11. Loney RW, Kotowicz WE, McDowell GC. Three-dimensional photoelastic stress analysisof the ferrule effect in cast post and cores. J Prosthet Dent 1990;63(5):506–512. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90066-L.
  12. Franco ÉB, Lins do Valle A, Pompéia Fraga de Almeida AL, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber posts of different lengths. J Prosthet Dent 2014;111(1): 30–34. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.09.013.
  13. Tjan AH, Whang SB. Resistance to root fracture of dowel channels with various thicknesses of buccal dentin walls. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(4):496–500. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90633-x.
  14. Al-Wahadni A, Gutteridge DL. An in vitro investigation into the effects of retained coronal dentine on the strength of a tooth restored with a cemented post and partial core restoration. Int Endod J 2002;35(11):913–918. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00596.x.
  15. Ng CCH, Dumbrigue HB, Al-Bayat MI, et al. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95(4):290–296. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.02.026.
  16. Arunpraditkul S, Saengsanon S, Pakviwat W, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: three walls versus four walls of remaining coronal tooth structure. J Prosthodont 2009;18(1):49–53. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00375.x.
  17. Torbjorner A, Fransson B. Biomechanical aspects of prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(4):135–141. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.06.017.
  18. Torbjorner A, Fransson B. A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(3):369–376.
  19. Okeson JP. Management of temporomandibular disorders and occlusion. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc; 2003.
  20. Neff PA. Temporomandibular joint, occlusion and function. Washington DC: Georgetown University School of Dentistry; 1987.
  21. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(4):355–363.
  22. Milot P, Stein RS. Root fracture in endodontically treated teeth related to post selection and crown design. J Prosthet Dent 1992;68(3): 428–435. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90405-y.
  23. Saupe WA, Gluskin AH, Radke RA Jr, et al. A comparative study of fracture resistance between morphologic dowel and cores and a resin-reinforced dowel system in the intraradicular restoration of structurally compromised roots. Quintessence Int 1996;27(7): 483–491.
  24. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH, et al. Stiffness of endodontically-treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989;68(11):1540–1544. DOI: 10.1177/00220345890680111401.
  25. Jagadish S, Yogesh BG. Fracture resistance of teeth with class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990;15(2):42–47.
  26. Hurmuzlu F, Kiremitci A, Serper A, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with ormocer and packable composite. J Endod 2003;29(12):838–840. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200312000-00014.
  27. Ausiello P, De Gee AJ, Rengo S, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated premolars adhesively restored. Am J Dent 1997;10(5):237–241.
  28. Boyer DB, Roth L. Fracture resistance of teeth with bonded amalgams. Am J Dent 1994;7(2):91–94.
  29. Eakle WS. Increased fracture resistance of teeth: comparison of five bonded composite resin systems. Quintessence Int 1986;17(1): 17–20.
  30. Gelb MN, Barouch E, Simonsen RJ, et al. Resistance to cusp fracture in class II prepared and restored premolars. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55(2):184–185. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90338-0.
  31. McCullock AJ, Smith BG. In vitro studies of cusp reinforcement with adhesive restorative material. Br Dent J 1986;161(12):450–452. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4806005.
  32. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PCF, Martins LRM, et al. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behaviour of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part I: fracture resistance and fracture mode. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(1):30–37. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08) 60006-2.
  33. Soares PV, Santos-Filho PCF, Gomide HA, et al. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behaviour of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Part II: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99(2):114–122. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60027-X.
  34. Mondelli RFL, Ishikiriama SK, Oliveira Filho O, et al. Fracture resistance of weakened teeth restored with condensable resin with and without cusp coverage. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(3):161–165. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000300006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.