The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 19 , ISSUE 10 ( 2018 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Composite Overcast Gold Post and Core Buildups in Endodontically Treated Teeth

Swapna Munaga, Abhisek Das, Tamanpreet Kaur, Ashfaq Yaqoob, Rizwan Mokashi, Prabhu MS Ismail

Keywords : Composite, Core, Gold, Post

Citation Information : Munaga S, Das A, Kaur T, Yaqoob A, Mokashi R, Ismail PM. Comparative Clinical Evaluation of Composite Overcast Gold Post and Core Buildups in Endodontically Treated Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2018; 19 (10):1273-1277.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2416

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 00-10-2018

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2018; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background: The management of non-vital teeth includes endodontic treatment and restoration followed by post and core restoration in selected cases. The present study was conducted to compare the indirect cast post, and core buildup with direct composite post build up in patients. Materials and Methods: The present study was conducted on 128 teeth of 82 patients. The success rate over 3 years was evaluated clinically and radiographically by observing caries, tooth mobility, probing depth, periapical pathology, and root fractures. Results: Group I consisted of 16 incisors, 20 canines, 22 premolars, and six molars while group II had 17 incisors, 14 canines, 25 premolars, and eight molars. The difference was statistical non-significant (p–0.1). Forty-four teeth in group I and 42 teeth in group II utilized composite cement, whereas 18 teeth in group I and 16 teeth in group II used GIC and zinc phosphate was used in two teeth in group I and six teeth in group II. The difference was statistical ly significant (p< 0.05). Four teeth in group I and 8 in group II were lost. One tooth in group I and two teeth in group II showed root fracture and three teeth in group I and six teeth in group II showed periapical pathology. The difference was statistically significant (p–0.01). Most common type of complication was probing depth > 4 mm, caries, tooth mobility, and root fracture. The difference was non- significant (p–0.31). Conclusion: Both composite post buildup and cast gold post and core build-up exhibited similar properties. Clinical significance: Both composite post buildup and cast gold post and core build-up exhibited similar properties hence either of the methods can be used in post core build up.


PDF Share
  1. Robbins WJ. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin N Am 2002; 46:367–384.
  2. William Cheung A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. JADA 2005; 136:611-620.
  3. Rolf KC, Parker MW, Pelleu GB. Stress analysis of five prefabricated endodontic dowel designs: a photoelastic study. Oper Dent1992;17:86-92.
  4. Deutsch, Musikant BL, Cavallari J, and Lepley JB. Prefabricated dowels: A literature review. JPD 1983;49:498- 504.
  5. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth Post, core and the final restoration. JADA. 2005;136:611-619
  6. Hoag EP, Dwyer TG. A comparative evaluation of three post and core techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1982; 47:177-181.
  7. Kvist T, Rydin E, Reit C. The relative frequency of periapical lesions in teeth with root canal retained posts. J Endod 1989; 15:578-580.
  8. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431–437.
  9. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64:419-424.
  10. Creugers NHJ, Mentink AGM, Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM. 5-year follow-up of a prospective clinical study on various types of core restorations.lnt J Prosthodont 2005;18:34-39.
  11. Bachicha WS, DiFiore PM, Miller DA, Lautenschlager EP, Pashley DH. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with posts. J Endod 1998;24:703-770.
  12. Kimmel SS. Restorat ion and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth with a polyethylene ribbon and prefabricated fiberglass post. Gen Dent. 2000; 6:700-6.
  13. Alex McLean. Predictably Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth. J Can Dent Assoc 1998;64:782-787
  14. Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Debels E, Lesaffre E, Naert I.An up to 3-Year Controlled Clinical Trial Comparing the Outcome of Glass Fiber Posts and Composite Cores with Gold Alloy-Based Posts and Cores for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2011 Jul-Aug;24(4):363-72.
  15. Jung RE, Kalkstein O, Sailer I, Roos M, Hämmerle CH. A comparison of composite post buildups and cast gold postand- core buildups for the restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2007 Jan-Feb;20(1):63-9.
  16. Khaledi AAR, Sheykhian S, Khodaei A. Evaluation of Retention of two Different Cast Post-Core Systems and Fracture Resistance of the Restored Teeth. J Dent (Shiraz). 2015 Jun; 16(2):121–128.
  17. Bittner N, Hill T, Randi A.Evaluation of a one-piece milled zirconia post and core with different post-andcore systems: An in vitro study. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry. 2010;103(6):369-379
  18. Martinez-Insua A, da Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with a cast post and core or carbon-fiber post with a composite core. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:527–32.
  19. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post Placement and Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Literature Review. Journal of Endodontics. 2004;30(5):289-301
  20. Bergali CD, de Carvallo RF, Balducci I, Meira IB, de Araujo MAM, Valera MC. Influence of fiber post cementation length on coronal microleakage values in vitro and finite element analysis. J Cont Dent Pract. 2014;15(4):444-450
  21. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, and Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: A literature review. JPD 2003;90:556-62.
  22. Mentink AGB, Creugers NHJ, Meeuwissen R. Leempoel PJB. Kayser AF. Clinical performance of different post and core systems-Results of a pilot study. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20:577-584.
  23. Valderhaug J, Jokstad A, Ambjørnsen E, Norheim PW. Assessment of Periapical clinical status of crowned teeth over 25 years. Journal of dentistry 1997;25:97-105.
  24. Hatzikyriakos AH, Reisis GI. Tsingos N.A 3-year postoperative clinical evaluation of posts and cores beneath existing crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:454- 458.
  25. Heydecke G, Peters MC. The restoration of endodontically treated single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: A systematic review. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:380- 386.
  26. Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WB. Fibre-based post systems: A review. Br Dent J 2003; 195:43-48.
  27. Freeman MA, Nicholls JI, Kydd WL, Harrington Gw. Leakage associated with load fatigue-induced preliminary failure of full crowns placed over three different post and core systems. J Endod 1998;24:26-32.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.