The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 7 ( November, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Different Post Systems Using New-generation Adhesives

Güliz Görgül, Bagdagül Helvacioglu Kivanç

Citation Information : Görgül G, Kivanç BH. Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Different Post Systems Using New-generation Adhesives. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (7):33-40.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-7-33

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-11-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to investigate the fracture strength of three post systems cemented with a dual cure composite resin luting cement by using different adhesive systems.

Methods and Materials

In this study 63 extracted anterior teeth with single roots were endodontically prepared and filled. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of three post systems placed into the prepared canals: Group I - titanium posts (n=21) (Filpost); Group II - glass fiber posts (n=21) (Mirafit White); and Group III zirconia posts (n=21) (CosmoPost). Each group was again randomly divided into three subgroups according to the bonding materials used [Single Bond (n=7), Clearfil SE Bond (n=7), and Prompt L Pop (n=7)]. A dual cured resin cement (Rely X ARC) was used for bonding the posts into the root canals. Standard cores were made by a composite resin (Clearfil Photocore) using core build-ups. The samples were tested in the compression test machine for 1 mm/min and fracture resistance of the teeth were recorded. The data was analyzed by using twoway analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Duncan's New Multiple Range Tests. A significance level of p<.05 was used for all comparisons.

Results

There was a significant difference in fracture resistance between the post systems (p<0.05) and the interaction of adhesive resins and post systems (p<0.05). Mirafit White was more resistant to fracture than other groups; Filpost showed the least resistance to fracture. CosmoPost post system bonded with Single Bond recorded the lowest fracture resistance (p<0.05).

Conclusion

Endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with glass fiber posts exhibited higher failure loads than teeth restored with zirconia and titanium posts. Self-etching adhesives are better alternatives to etch-andrinse adhesive systems for luting post systems.

Clinical Significance

Under the condition of this study, glass fiber posts are preferable to restore endodontically treated anterior teeth.

Citation

Kivanç BH, Görgül G. Fracture Resistance of Teeth Restored with Different Post Systems Using Newgeneration Adhesives. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 November; (9)7:033-040.


PDF Share
  1. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51:780-4.
  2. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with two different post –and core designs cemented with two different cements. Quintessence Int 2003;34:301-6.
  3. Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71:565-7.
  4. Endodontics. 4th ed, Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1994.
  5. Clinical evaluation of a carbon fibre reinforced carbon endodontic post. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30:785-9.
  6. Esthetic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 79:702-5.
  7. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 80:151-7.
  8. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:431-7.
  9. Load fatigue of compromised teeth: a comparison of 3 luting cements. Int J Prosthodont 1998; 11:558-64.
  10. Retention of posts cemented with various dentinal bonding cements. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 72:591-4.
  11. Adhesion of resin composite core materials to dentin. Int J Prosthodont 2001; 14:451-6.
  12. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42:39-44.
  13. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69:36-40.
  14. Corono-radicular reconstruction of pulpless teeth: a mechanical study using finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:442–8.
  15. In vitro tensile bond strength of adhesive cements to new post materials. Int J Prosthodont 2000; 13:47-51.
  16. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64:419-24.
  17. Retention and stress distribution of tapered-end endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55:540-6.
  18. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999; 27:275-8.
  19. Root reinforcement with a resin-bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:10-4.
  20. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbonquartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent 1999; 1:153-8.
  21. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:5-9.
  22. Rigidity and retention of ceramic root canal posts. Oper Dent 2000; 25:223-7.
  23. In vitro evaluation of long-term bonding of Procera AllCeram alumina restorations with a modified resin luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89:381-7.
  24. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion methods and their durability. Dent Mater 1998; 14:64-71.
  25. Long-term resin bond strength to zirconia ceramic. J Adhes Dent 2000;2:139-47.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.