The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2024 ) > List of Articles


Removal Efficiency and Effectiveness of Four Different Fiber Posts Using Five Different Drill Systems in Multirooted Teeth

Mohamed Sayed, Ahmad M Alahmad, Khaled S Alhajji, Abdullah Y Alenezi, Mohamed Atif Elkholy, Mohamed Abdel Rahman El Shreif, Rehab Ali Farag, Doaa Gamal Basta, Hazar Rifai, Mohammad Rayyan

Keywords : Easy removal fiber posts, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Fiber post, Removal

Citation Information : Sayed M, Alahmad AM, Alhajji KS, Alenezi AY, Elkholy MA, El Shreif MA, Farag RA, Basta DG, Rifai H, Rayyan M. Removal Efficiency and Effectiveness of Four Different Fiber Posts Using Five Different Drill Systems in Multirooted Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (1):72-78.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3629

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 17-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Aim: In comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of different types of post removal systems in removing different types of fiber posts (FPs), this study aims to shed light on the success of removal by currently available drill systems. Materials and methods: A total of 200 maxillary first molars, were root canal treated and prepared to receive posts. The molars were divided into four groups corresponding to four different FPs: Group RX, Radix FP; Group RF, Reforpost Glass Fiber; Group HI; Hi-Rem Endodontic Post; and Group DT, D.T. Light-Post Illusion X-RO. Fiber posts were done with luting by Gradia Core (GC America, Inc.). Groups were again divided into five subgroups corresponding to the technique by which the FP was removed into as follows: Subgroup P, PD-25-1.1 Drill; subgroup G, GC FP Drill; subgroup E, EasyPost Precision Drill; subgroup R, Reaccess Carbide Double Taper Kit; and subgroup H; H-Endodontic Drill. After posts were removed, effectiveness and efficiency were documented. Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Strong significant differences regarding efficiency among groups (FP type) and subgroups (drills used) (p = 0.00) were shown by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Subgroup DT-G scored the longest mean removal time (20.9 minutes) while Subgroup RX-R scored the shortest mean removal time (1.4 minutes) Regarding effectiveness, strong significant differences among groups (p = 0.00) and subgroups (p = 0.00) were shown by one-way ANOVA. Subgroup RF-G scored the highest scale (5.2) whereas subgroup HI-R scored the lowest mean scale (1.2). Conclusion: The difference was strongly significant between tested post-removal kits and between tested FPs. Re-access Carbide Double Taper Kit performed superiorly in both effectiveness and efficiency, followed by PD-25-1.1 Drill. Hi-Rem post showed the best retrieving results among other FPs. Clinical significance: Knowing the best technique and tools for post removal could spare the practitioner any unwanted complications during post removal.

  1. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Grandini S, et al. Post placement affects survival of endodontically treated premolars. J Dent Res 2007; 86(8):729–734. DOI: 10.1177/154405910708600808.
  2. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon–quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent 1999;1(2):153–158. PMID: 11725680.
  3. Grandini S, Goracci C, Monticelli F, et al. SEM evaluation of the cement layer thickness after luting two different posts. J Adhes Dent 2005;7(3):235–240. PMID: 16240965.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. Lazari PC, Oliveira RC, Anchieta RB, et al. Stress distribution on dentin-cement-post interface varying root canal and glass fiber post diameters. A three-dimensional finite element analysis based on micro-CT data. J Appl Oral Sci 2013;21(6):511–517. DOI: 10.1590/1679-775720130203.
  7. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, et al. Long-term retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2007;20(5):287–291. PMID: 17993023.
  8. Zicari F, Couthino E, De Munck J, et al. Bonding effectiveness and sealing ability of fiber-post bonding. Dent Mater 2008;24(7):967–977. DOI: 10.1016/
  9. Franco EB, 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.
  10. 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.
  11. Al-Omiri MK, Rayyan MR, Abu-Hammad O. Stress analysis of endodontically treated teeth restored with post-retained crowns: A finite element analysis study. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142(3):289–300. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0168.
  12. Purger LO, Tavares SJ, Martinez RL, et al. Comparing techniques for removing fiber endodontic posts: A systematic review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(5):587–595. PMID: 34318781.
  13. Ferrari M, Vichi A, García–Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13(Spec No):15B–18B. PMID: 11763866.
  14. Giovani AR, Vansan LP, de Sousa Neto MD, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of glass–fiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(3):183–188. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60025-1.
  15. Cho J, Liu J, Bukhari EA, et al. Comparison of post space volume changes following fiber post removal using Er,Cr:YSGG laser versus ultrasonic instrument. J Prosthodont 2022;31(3):245–251. DOI: 10.1111/jopr.13391.
  16. Papoulidou I, Dionysopoulos D, Mourouzis P, et al. Evaluation of Er,Cr:YSGG laser technique for fiber post removal of endodontically treated teeth using micro-computed tomography. Microsc Res Tech 2023;86(7):803–812. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.24340.
  17. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, et al. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int 2008;39(2):117–129. PMID: 18560650.
  18. 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.
  19. Bitter K, Kielbassa AM. Post-endodontic restorations with adhesively luted fiber-reinforced composite post systems: A review. Am J Dent 2007;20(6):353–360. PMID: 18269124.
  20. Haupt F, Riggers I, Konietschke F, et al. Effectiveness of different fiber post removal techniques and their influence on dentinal microcrack formation. Clin Oral Investig 2022;26(4):3679–3685. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04338-0.
  21. Rayyan MM, Hussien AN, Naguib H, et al. Fracture resistance of computer aided endo-crowns versus conventional core-supported computer aided full crowns. Int Arab J Dent 2019;10(2):54–59. DOI: 10.12816/0055609.
  22. Dghaily D, Rayyan M, Ragab H, et al. Comparison of fracture resistance between different treatment modalities of mutilated endodontically treated teeth using polyether ether ketone. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023;24(9):668–673. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3558.
  23. 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.
  24. Lassila LV, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, et al. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):29–36. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(03)00065-4.
  25. De Rijk WG. Removal of fiber posts from endodontically treated teeth. Am J Dent 2000;13(Spec No):19B–21B. PMID: 11763867.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. Rayyan MM, Alwaely AM. Simplified technique for removal of prefabricated threaded posts. BAU Journal-Creative Sustainable Development. 2019;1(1): Article 6. DOI: 10.54729/2789-8334.1005.
  30. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: A literature review. Aust Dent J 2011;56(Suppl. 1):77–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01298.x.
  31. Alfadda A, Alfadley A, Jamleh A. Fiber post removal using a conservative fully guided approach: A dental technique. Case Rep Dent 2022;2022:3752466. DOI: 10.1155/2022/3752466.
  32. Rayyan MM. Comparison of efficiency and effectiveness of fiber post removal in multi-rooted teeth using four different techniques. Egypt Dent J 2014;60(2);2525–2553. DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.10523107.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.