Aim: This systematic review aimed to establish the available techniques for fiber post removal, pointing out where each method stands out evaluating its advantages, and where they fall short indicating the possible harmful effects.
Materials and methods: This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020193799). A broad search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library was carried out before April 27, 2020, for in vitro studies about techniques for removing fiber posts luted with resin cements of endodontically treated teeth. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated based on the critical assessment tool for in vitro studies.
Results: Thirteen articles were selected and included after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All included studies received an assessment of methodological quality between high and moderate. Most studies used ultrasonic inserts as a strategy to remove fiber posts, manufactured removal kits and drills were also widely used, only one study evaluated the removal capacity of the Er:YAG laser. Ultrasonic inserts seem to lead to a greater working time for removal of the fiber post, tend to generate significant volume changes in the root structure and increase the temperature on the root canal and clean the root canal walls further.
Conclusion: Although the results tend to show greater agility in removing fiber posts with manufactured removal kits and the ultrasonic inserts seem to work better in removing fiber remains and luting agent, there is still no consensus in the literature as to which technique is the best.
Clinical Significance: In some cases, clinicians may be faced with the need to remove fiber posts in order to regain access to the root canal due to the need for endodontic retreatment which directly implies the search for the most appropriate removal technique.
Siqueira JF, Rôças IN, Marceliano-Alves MF, et al. Unprepared root canal surface areas: causes, clinical implications, and therapeutic strategies. Braz Oral Res 2018;32:1–19. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0065.
Arukaslan G, Aydemir S. Comparison of the efficacies of two different fiber post-removal systems: a micro-computed tomography study. Microsc Res Technol 2019;82(4):394–401. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23180.
Deeb JG, Grzech-Leśniak K, Weaver C, et al. Retrieval of glass fiber post using Er:YAG laser and conventional endodontic ultrasonic method: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont 2019;28(9):1024–1028. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13114.
Lindemann M, Yaman P, Dennison JB, et al. Comparison of the efficiency and effectiveness of various techniques for removal of fiber posts. J Endod 2005;31(7):520–522. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000167397.60943.6e.
Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, et al. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2000;13(Spec No):9B–13B. PMID: 11763869.
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27(4):275–278. DOI: 10.1016/s0300-5712(98)00066-9.
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(1):26–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849x.2001.00026.x.
Anderson GC, Perdigão J, Hodges JS, et al. Efficiency and effectiveness of fiber post removal using 3 techniques. Quintessence Int 2007;38(8):663–670. PMID: 17823684.
Abe FC, Da Silveira Bueno CE, De Martin A, et al. Efficiency and effectiveness evaluation of three glass fiber post removal techniques using dental structure wear assessment method. Indian J Dent Res 2014;25(5):576–579. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.147091.
Çapar ID, Uysal B, Ok E, et al. Effect of the size of the apical enlargement with rotary instruments, single-cone filling, post space preparation with drills, fiber post removal, and root canal filling removal on apical crack initiation and propagation. J Endod 2015;41(2):253–256. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.012.
Gesi A, Magnolfi S, Goracci C, et al. Comparison of two techniques for removing fiber posts. J Endod 2003;29(9):580–582. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200309000-00009.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 2009;6(7):e100097. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.
Sarkis-Onofre R, Skupien JA, Cenci MS, et al. The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and metaanalysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent 2014;39(1):31–44. DOI: 10.2341/13-070-LIT.
Moraes AP, Sarkis-Onofre R, Moraes RR, et al. Can silanization increase the retention of glass-fiber posts? A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent 2015;40(6):567–580. DOI: 10.2341/14-330-O.
Mishra L, Khan AS, Campos Velo MMA, et al. Effects of surface treatments of glass fiber-reinforced post on bond strength to root dentine: a systematic review. Materials 2020;13(8):1967. DOI: 10.3390/ma13081967.
Aydemir S, Arukaslan G, Sarıdağ S, et al. Comparing fracture resistance and the time required for two different fiber post removal systems. J Prosthodont 2018;27(8):771–774. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12575.
Kim JJ, Alapati S, Knoernschild KL, et al. Micro-computed tomography of tooth volume changes following post removal. J Prosthodont 2017;26(6):522–528. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.12442.
Capriotti L, Greco K, Paolone G, et al. Removal of fiber posts during endodontic retreatments using ultrasonic tips: a comparison between two different endodontic fiber posts. G Ital Endod 2018;32(1):47–50. DOI: 10.1016/j.gien.2018.04.002.
Haupt F, Pfitzner J, Hülsmann M. A comparative in vitro study of different techniques for removal of fibre posts from root canals. Aust Endod J 2018;44(3):245–250. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12230.
Scotti N, Bergantin E, Alovisi M, et al. Evaluation of a simplified fiber post removal system. J Endod 2013;39(11):1431–1434. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.005.
Frazer RQ, Kovarik RE, Chance KB, et al. Removal time of fiber posts versus titanium posts. Am J Dent 2008;21(3):175–178. PMID: 18686770.
Baba NZ, Golden G, Goodacre CJ. Nonmetallic prefabricated dowels: a review of compositions, properties, laboratory, and clinical test results. J Prosthodont 2009;18(6):527–536. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2009.00464.x.
Sorrentino R, Di Mauro MI, Ferrari M, et al. Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses—a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20(7):1449–1457. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-016-1919-8.
Rasimick BJ, Wan J, Musikant BL, et al. A review of failure modes in teeth restored with adhesively luted endodontic dowels. J Prosthodont 2010;19(8):639–646. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2010.00647.x.
Lorenzetti CC, Bortolatto JF, Ramos ATPR, et al. The effectiveness of glass ionomer cement as a fiber post cementation system in endodontically treated teeth. Microsc Res Tech 2019;82(7):1191–1197. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.23268.
Tanoue N, Koishi Y, Atsuta M, et al. Properties of dual-curable luting composites polymerized with single and dual curing modes. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(10):1015–1021. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01074.x.
Boschian Pest L, Cavalli G, Bertani P, et al. Adhesive post-endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. Dent Mater 2002;18(8):596–602. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00003-9.
Saridağ S, Helvacioğlu-Yiğit D, Özcan M, et al. Micro-computerized tomography analysis of cement voids and pull-out strength of glass fiber posts luted with self-adhesive and glass-ionomer cements in the root canal. J Adhes Sci Technol 2016;30(14):1585–1595. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1155911.
Hannig C, Dullin C, Hülsmann M, et al. Three-dimensional, non-destructive visualization of vertical root fractures using flat panel volume detector computer tomography: an ex vivo in vitro case report. Int Endod J 2005;38(12):904–913. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01033.x.
Harandi A, Mirzaeerad S, Mehrabani M, et al. Incidence of dentinal crack after root canal preparation by protaper universal, Neolix and Safesider systems. Iran Endod J 2017;12(4):432–438. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v12i4.17597.
Karataş E, Gündüz HA, Kirici DÖ, et al. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, protaper next, protaper universal, and waveone instruments. J Endod 2015;41(2):261–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.019.
De Rijk WG. Removal of fiber posts from endodontically treated teeth. Am J Dent 2000;13(Spec No):19B–21B. PMID: 11763867.
Grzech-Leśniak K, Matys J, Zmuda-Stawowiak D, et al. Er:YAG laser for metal and ceramic bracket debonding: an in vitro study on intrapulpal temperature, SEM, and EDS analysis. Photomed Laser Surg 2018;36(11):595–600. DOI: 10.1089/pho.2017.4412.
Bodrumlu E, Keskiner I, Sumer M, Telcioglu NT. Temperature variation on root surface with three root-end cavity preparation techniques. Srp Arh Celok Lek 2013;141(9–10):597–601. DOI: 10.2298/sarh1310597b.
Eriksson AR, Albrektsson T. Temperature threshold levels for heat-induced bone tissue injury: a vital-microscopic study in the rabbit. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50(1):101–107. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(83) 90174-9.