Aim: To compare and evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with Rebilda post GT, EverStick post and prefabricated glass fiber post at 90-degree vertical load and 45-degree oblique load.
Materials and methods: Eighty freshly extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected, and after root canal preparation and obturation, standardized post spaces were prepared. Samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20) depending on the type of restorative technique used: group I restored with Rebilda post GT system (bundled glass fiber reinforced composite post), group II restored with EverStick post (Individually formable glass fiber root canal post), group III restored with prefabricated glass fiber post, group IV restored with direct composite resin restoration without a post (control). Using a universal testing machine, 90-degree vertical and 45-degree oblique load was applied to the restored teeth with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute. Fracture loads and mode of fracture was recorded.
Results: The results of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey HSD test revealed that the fracture resistance was significantly affected by different post systems (p < 0.001).
Conclusion: Rebilda post GT samples showed maximum fracture resistance followed by the EverStick fiber post group, prefabricated post, and least in the control group.
Saritha MK, Paul U, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of different post systems. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017 Nov;7(6):356–359. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_413_17.
Nam SH, Chang HS, et al. Effect of the number of residual walls on fracture resistances, failure patterns, and photoelasticity of simulated premolars restored with or without fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2010;36:297–301. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.010.
Dietschi D, Duc O, 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;38:733–743.
Al-Omiri MK, Mahmoud AA, et al. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with post-retained restorations: an overview. J Endod 2010;36: 1439–1449. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.005.
Clark D, Khademi J. Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:249–273. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.001.
Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289–301. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001.
Cecchin D, Farina AP, et al. Fracture resistance of roots prosthetically restored with intra-radicular posts of different lengths. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37:116–122. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.02028.x.
Mitsui FH, Marchi GM, et al. In vitro study of fracture resistance of bovine roots using different intra radicular post systems. Quintessence Int 2004;35:612–616.
Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, et al. Effect of fiber post length and adhesive strategy on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth after fatigue loading. J Dent 2012;40:312–321. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.006.
Stricker EJ, Göhring TN. Influence of different posts and cores on marginal adaptation, fractures resistance, and fracture mode of composite resin crowns on human mandibular premolars: An in vitro study. J Dent 2006;34:326–335. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.07.007.
Newmann MP, Yaman P, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:360–367. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.75.
Silva NR, Castro CG, et al. Influence of different post design and composition on stress distribution in maxillary central incisor: Finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(2):153–158.
Cooney JP, Caputo AA, et al. Retention and stress distribution of tapered-end endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 1986;55:540–546. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(86)90028-4.
Lassila LV, Tanner J, et al. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 2004;20:29–36. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00065-4.
Galhano GA, Valandro LF, et al. Evaluation of the flexural strength of carbon fiber-, quartz fiber-, and glass fiber-based posts. J Endod 2005;31:209–211. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000137652.49748.0c.
Maceri F, Martignoni M, et al. Mechanical behaviour of endodontic restorations with multiple prefabricated posts: a finite-element approach. J Biomech 2007;40:2386–2398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech. 2006.11.018.
Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64:419–424. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90037-D.
Hatta M, Shinya A, et al. High volume individual fiber post versus low volume fiber post: the fracture load of the restored tooth. J Dent 2011;39:65–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2010.10.004.
Pantaleón DS, Morrow BR, et al. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure on fracture resistance and failure mode of restored endodontically treated maxillary incisors. J Prosthet Dent 2018 Mar 1;119(3):390–396. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.05.007.
Fuss Z, Lustig J, et al. Prevalence of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J 1999;32:283–286. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00208.x.
Sirimai S, Riis DN, et al. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:262–269. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70267-2.
Wandscher VF, Bergoli CD, et al. Preliminary results of the survival and fracture load of roots restored with intracanal posts: weakened vs nonweakened roots. Oper Dent 2014;39:541–555. DOI: 10.2341/12-465.
Meira JB, Esposito CO, et al. Elastic modulus of posts and the risk of root fracture. Dent Traumatol 2009;25:394–398. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2009.00772.x.