The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post

Valentina Spicciarelli, Crystal Marruganti, Marco Martignoni, Ludovica Andreatti, Tiziana Doldo, Marco Ferrari, Simone Grandini

Citation Information : Spicciarelli V, Marruganti C, Martignoni M, Andreatti L, Doldo T, Ferrari M, Grandini S. Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (12):1374-1378.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim and objective: The present study compared the fracture strength and failure pattern of endodontically treated, bi-rooted, maxillary premolars with different number of coronal walls and postendodontic restoration (one vs double post). Materials and methods: 105 premolars were divided into 3 groups according to the number of residual walls: control group (intact teeth; n = 15), group 1 (3 residual walls; n = 45), group 2 (2 residual walls; n = 45). Each test group was then divided into 3 subgroups (n = 15 each) according to postendodontic restoration: no post (A), 1 post (B) or 2 posts (C). A load was applied parallel to the longitudinal axis of the teeth, thus simulating physiological occlusion. ANOVA and Tukey's tests were used to detect fracture strength differences among groups, while Chi-square test was used to check differences in fracture pattern. Results: No significant differences were observed between control group (intact teeth) and groups A1 (p = 0.999), B1 (p = 0.997) and C1 (p = 1.000); statistically significant differences were detected between control group and groups A2 (p < 0.001), B2 (p < 0.001) and C2 (p < 0.05). Different post placement techniques were non-significantly associated with fracture pattern in both groups 1 (p = 0.666) and 2 (p = 0.143) while, irrespective of the number of posts, the presence of the post was significantly associated with the fracture pattern in teeth with two residual walls. The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of hardly damaged endodontically treated maxillary bi-rooted premolars compared to single-post technique. Therefore, the insertion of a single post in the palatal canal could be a safer and more conservative choice. Clinical significance: The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of severely structurally compromised endodontically treated maxillary premolars with two roots compared to the single-post technique. Therefore, the safer and less invasive treatment is the placement of a single post in the palatal canal.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Dentin collagen cross-linked of root filled and normal teeth. J Endod 1988;14:195–199.
  2. Collagen degradation in endodontically treated teeth after clinical function. J Dent Res 2004;83(5):414–419. DOI: 10.1177/154405910408300512.
  3. Vertical root fractures in endodontically-treated teeth: a retrospective analysis of possible risk factors. J Invest Clin Dent 2017;00:e12273.
  4. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30(5):289–301. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001.
  5. Comparative assessment of the incidence of vertical root fractures between conventional versus surgical endodontic retreatment. Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(8):2015–2021. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-1182-1.
  6. Root fractures due to corrosion diagnostic aspects. Scand J Dent Res 1970;78(5):397–403. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1970.tb02088.x.
  7. Effect of residual coronal structure on resistance of teeth restored with posts. G Ital Endod 2012;26:13–21.
  8. Clinical evaluation of the use of fiber posts and direct resin restorations for endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:399–404.
  9. Effect of ferrule location with varying heights on fracture resistance and failure mode of restored endodontically treated maxillary incisors. J Prosthodont 2019;28(6):677–683. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13090.
  10. Are posts necessary for the restoration of root filled teeth with limited tissue loss? A structured review of laboratory and clinical studies. Int Endod J 2016;49(9):827–835. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12538.
  11. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post core systems: an in-vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3(2):90–95. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.90.
  12. The effect of fiber post location on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars. Dent Med Probl 2018;55(3):275–279. DOI: 10.17219/dmp/94656.
  13. Effect of remaining tooth structure on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115(3):290–295. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.013.
  14. The effect of marginal ridge thickness on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated, composite restored maxillary premolars. Oper Dent 2007;32(3):285–290. DOI: 10.2341/06-83.
  15. 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.
  16. Influence of cavity type and size of composite restorations on cuspal flexure. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:536–540.
  17. In vitro measurement of cuspal strain and displacement in composite restored teeth. J Dent 1997;25(3-4):331–337. DOI: 10.1016/S0300-5712(96)00047-4.
  18. Cuspal flexure of teeth with composite restorations subjected to occlusal loading. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:11–15.
  19. Influence of clenching intensity on bite force balance, occlusal contact area, and average bite pressure. J Dent Res 1999;78(7):1336–1344. DOI: 10.1177/00220345990780070801.
  20. Maximal bite force with centric and eccentric load. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9(5):445–450. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1982.tb01034.x.
  21. Influence of restorative technique on the biomechanical behavior 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.
  22. The influence of restorative material and glass fiber posts on fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars after extensive structure loss. Niger J Clin Pract 2019;22(6):782–789. DOI: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_11_19.
  23. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with 2 different fiber-reinforced composite and 2 conventional composite resin core buildup materials: an in vitro study. J Endod 2017;43(9):1499–1504. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.03.031.
  24. The effect of the different restorations on fracture resistance of root-filled premolars. BMC Oral Health 2018;18(1):196. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-018-0663-7.
  25. Effect of fiber posts on the fracture resistance of maxillary central incisors with class III restorations: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2017;118(1):55–60. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2016.09.013.
  26. Residual thickness of root in first maxillary premolars with post space preparation. J Endod 1999;25(7):502–505. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80291-X.
  27. Furcation groove of buccal root of maxillary first premolars--a morphometric study. J Endod 2000;26(6):359–363. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200006000-00012.
  28. The dentine-rot complex: anatomical and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(4):458–467. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90073-J.
  29. Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp. 10th ed., St. Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2011. 148–233.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.