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 4 ( April, 2020 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Fiber Posts Luted with Composite Core Materials

Abdullah S Alshahrani, Hassan B Alamri, Faisal M Nadrah, Moteb K Almotire, Ahmed Y Alateeq, Ibraheem F Alshiddi, Sayed R Habib, Ala’a I Abu-Obaid

Keywords : Core buildup, Fiber post, Fracture resistance, In vitro study, Secondary monobloc, Self-adhesive resin cements

Citation Information : Alshahrani AS, Alamri HB, Nadrah FM, Almotire MK, Alateeq AY, Alshiddi IF, Habib SR, Abu-Obaid AI. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored with Fiber Posts Luted with Composite Core Materials. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (4):383-389.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2814

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 25-04-2012

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


Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to investigate the influence of using dual-cure composite core materials for fiber post luting on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. Materials and methods: Fifty sound and recently extracted maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and distributed into five groups. In the control group, access cavities were restored with the composite resin. Experimental groups had the coronal structure trimmed 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction. Teeth were restored with fiber posts and different combinations of luting and core materials: RelyX Unicem for post luting and MultiCore for core buildup; MultiCore for post luting and core buildup; RelyX Unicem for post luting and LuxaCore for core buildup; or LuxaCore for post luting and core buildup. All teeth were restored with zirconium crowns and subjected to thermocycling (6000 cycles 5/55°C). Loading of the teeth was applied at 135° to the palatal surface, using a universal testing machine at a cross-speed of 0.5 mm/minute until failure. The mode of failure was analyzed under a digital microscope. Results: The fracture resistance of the control group was significantly higher than the experimental groups (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between the experimental groups (p > 0.05). All teeth demonstrated nonrestorable failures. Conclusion: With the presence of the ferrule effect and crown restoration, the selected materials for post luting and core buildup have no significant influence on the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated teeth. Clinical significance: The use of the same dual-cure composite core materials for fiber post luting and core buildup would simplify the clinical procedure without enhancement of the fracture resistance of the endodontically treated tooth.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Williams JV, Williams LR. Is coronal restoration more important than root filling for ultimate endodontic success? Dent Update 2010;37(3):187–193. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2010.37.3.187.
  2. Morgano SM, Rodrigues AH, Sabrosa CE. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):397–416. DOI: 10.1016/j. cden.2003.12.011.
  3. Marchi GM, Paulillo LA, Pimenta LA, et al. Effect of different filling materials in combination with intraradicular posts on the resistance to fracture of weakened roots. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30(6):623–629. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.00990.x.
  4. Tjan AH, Whang SB. Resistance to root fracture of dowel channels with various thicknesses of buccal dentin walls. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53(4):496–500. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(85)90633-x.
  5. Zogheib LV, Saavedra Gde S, Cardoso PE, et al. Resistance to compression of weakened roots subjected to different root reconstruction protocols. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19(6):648–654. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572011000600018.
  6. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67(4):458–467. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(92)90073-j.
  7. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J 2011;56(1):77–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2010.01298.x.
  8. Morgano SM, Brackett SE. Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics: current knowledge and future needs. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(6):643–657. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70005-3.
  9. Maccari PC, Cosme DC, Oshima HM, et al. Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with flared root canals and restored with different post systems. J Esthet Restor Dent 2007;19(1):30–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2006.00060.x; discussion 7.
  10. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45(1):103–116.
  11. Figueiredo FED, Martins-Filho PRS, Faria-e-Silva AL. Do metal post–retained restorations result in more root fractures than fiber post–retained restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2015;41(3):309–316. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.006.
  12. Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003;195(1):43–48. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810278; discussion 37.
  13. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, et al. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22(5):477–485. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.017.
  14. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC. Retention of endodontic dowels: effects of cement, dowel length, diameter, and design. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39(4):400–405. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(78)80156-5.
  15. Adanir N, Belli S. Stress analysis of a maxillary central incisor restored with different posts. Eur J Dent 2007;1(2):67–71. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1698316.
  16. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(4):360–367. DOI: 10.1067/mpr. 2003.75.
  17. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):262–269. DOI: 10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70267-2.
  18. Bonfante G, Kaizer OB, Pegoraro LF, et al. Fracture strength of teeth with flared root canals restored with glass fibre posts. Int Dent J 2007;57(3):153–160. DOI: 10.1111/j.1875-595x.2007.tb00118.x.
  19. Biacchi GR, FLBd A, França FMG, et al. Mechanical properties of flared root canals restored with fiber post and chemically activated resin: Study using push-out bond strength and fracture load tests. J Adhes Sci Technol 2016;30(13):1441–1452. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1147126.
  20. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiberreinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13(Spec No):15B–18B.
  21. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):431–437. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123227.
  22. Dallari A, Rovatti L. Six years of in vitro/in vivo experience with composipost. Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, NJ: 1995) supplement. 1996(20):S57–S63.
  23. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod 2007;33(4):391–398. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2006.10.009.
  24. Vichi A, Carrabba M, Goracci C, et al. Extent of cement polymerization along dowel space as a function of the interaction between adhesive and cement in fiber post cementation. J Adhes Dent 2012;14(1):51–57. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a21849.
  25. Perdigão J. Restoration of Root Canal-Treated Teeth: An Adhesive Dentistry Perspective. Springer; 2015.
  26. Monticelli F, Osorio R, Mazzitelli C, et al. Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res 2008;87(10):974–979. DOI: 10.1177/154405910808701012.
  27. Yoldas O, Alaçam T. Microhardness of composites in simulated root canals cured with light transmitting posts and glass-fiber reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2005;31(2):104–106. DOI: 10.1097/01. don.0000133160.08600.47.
  28. Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, et al. Self-adhesive cements as core build-ups for one-stage post-endodontic restorations? Int Endod J 2011;44(3):195–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591. 2010.01797.x.
  29. O’Keefe KL, Powers JM. Adhesion of resin composite core materials to dentin. Int J Prosthod 2001;14(5):451–456.
  30. Kajihara H, Suzuki S, Minesaki Y, et al. Effect of filler loading on resin cement bonding to silanized buildup composites. Am J Dent 2005;18(2):109–112.
  31. Naumann M, Kiessling S, Seemann R. Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a nationwide survey of dentists in Germany. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(5):332–338. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.08.028.
  32. Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, et al. In vitro performance of self-adhesive resin cements for post-and-core build-ups: influence of chewing simulation or 1-year storage in 0.5% chloramines solution. Acta Biomater 2010;6(11):4389–4395. DOI: 10.1016/j. actbio.2010.05.023.
  33. Monaco C, Llukacej A, Baldissara P, et al. Zirconia-based versus metal-based single crowns veneered with overpressing ceramic for restoration of posterior endodontically treated teeth: 5-year results of a randomized controlled clinical study. J Dent 2017;65:56–63. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2017.07.004.
  34. Lima AFD, Spazzin AO, Galafassi D, et al. Influence of ferrule preparation with or without glass fiber post on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 2010;18(4):360–363. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572010000400007.
  35. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosth Dent 1979;42(1):39–44. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7.
  36. Tan PLB, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated central incisors with varying ferrule heights and configurations. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93(4):331–336. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.01.013.
  37. Signore A, Benedicenti S, Kaitsas V, et al. Long-term survival of endodontically treated, maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or parallel-sided glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown coverage. J Dent 2009;37(2):115–121. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2008. 10.007.
  38. Juloski J, Fadda G, Monticelli F, et al. Four-year survival of endodontically treated premolars restored with fiber posts. J Dent Res 2014;93(7):52S–58SS. DOI: 10.1177/0022034514527970.
  39. Kim YH, Lee JH. Influence of modification in core building procedure on fracture strength and failure patterns of premolars restored with fiber post and composite core. J Adv Prosthodont 2012;4(1):37–42. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2012.4.1.37.
  40. Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, et al. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different postand-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):438–445. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123849.
  41. Assif D, Oren E, Marshak BL, et al. Photoelastic analysis of stress transfer by endodontically treated teeth to the supporting structure using different restorative techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61(5):535–543. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90272-2.
  42. Ichim I, Kuzmanovic D, Love R. A finite element analysis of ferrule design on restoration resistance and distribution of stress within a root. Int Endod J 2006;39(6):443–452. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01085.x.
  43. Panitiwat P, Salimee P. Effect of different composite core materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with FRC posts. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25(2):203–210. DOI: 10.1590/1678-77572016-0306.
  44. Bitter K, Schubert A, Neumann K, et al. Are self-adhesive resin cements suitable as core build-up materials? analyses of maximum load capability, margin integrity, and physical properties. Clin Oral Investig 2016;20(6):1337–1345. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-015-1623-0.
  45. 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.
  46. Bitter K, Gläser C, Neumann K, et al. Analysis of resin-dentin interface morphology and bond strength evaluation of core materials for one stage post-endodontic restorations. PLoS ONE 2014;9(2):e86294. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0086294.
  47. Ferrari M, Carvalho CA, Goracci C, et al. Influence of luting material filler content on post cementation. J Dent Res 2009;88(10):951–956. DOI: 10.1177/0022034509342851.
  48. Ferrario V, Sforza C, Serrao G, et al. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(1):18–22. DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.x.
  49. Qing H, Zhu Z, Chao Y, et al. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance of anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber and zircon posts. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97(2):93–98. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.12.008.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.