The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored Using Different Fiber Posts: An In Vitro Study

Prerak Doshi, Aruna Kanaparthy, Rosaiah Kanaparthy, Disha S Parikh

Keywords : Carbon fiber, Fracture resistance, Glass fiber post, Post and core, Static loading

Citation Information : Doshi P, Kanaparthy A, Kanaparthy R, Parikh DS. A Comparative Analysis of Fracture Resistance and Mode of Failure of Endodontically Treated Teeth Restored Using Different Fiber Posts: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (10):1195-1199.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2668

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-10-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the fracture resistance under static loading of endodontically treated teeth (maxillary central incisors) restored with carbon fiber posts, glass fiber posts, and everStick posts. The objectives of this study were to check the fracture resistance of the everStick post and compare it with glass fiber posts and carbon fiber posts and evaluated their modes of failure. Materials and methods: An estimated 80 freshly extracted human maxillary central incisors were collected for this study. The coronal portions of 60 teeth were sectioned 4 mm incisal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and 20 teeth were left intact to be used as controls. All the samples were embedded vertically in acrylic resin blocks and the groups were divided as follows. I—control group, II—carbon fiber group, III—glass fiber group, and IV—everStick (E-glass) group. Root canal treatment was completed in all the 80 teeth of 4 groups. Control group teeth were restored with a composite. In all other teeth, post and core placement was carried out. All specimens were mounted on a test block and subjected to static loading until fracture and the mode of fracture was recorded. Statistical analysis was carried out using ANOVA to calculate the mean values of all groups. An intergroup comparison was carried out using Tukey\'s post hoc test. Results: The study showed that group I showed the highest fracture resistance followed by group IV, which is everStick post group under static loading. There was a significant difference among test groups. The main mode of fracture was repairable as there was debonding of the core in all the fiber posts. Conclusion: Teeth of the control group showed highest fracture resistance and teeth restored with everStick posts showed higher fracture resistance than those restored with glass fiber or carbon fiber posts under static loading (p < 0.05). The principal mode of fracture was debonding of core and remaining root. Teeth restored without application of a post showed the highest fracture resistance than all other groups. Clinical significance: EverStick/E-glass fiber posts showed significantly higher fracture resistance than the other fiber posts and can be suggested for clinical use.


  1. McComb D. Restoration of the Endodontically Treated Tooth. Ensuring Continued trust, dispatch, february/march 2008.
  2. Haralur SB, Al Ahmari MA, et al. The Effect of Intraradicular Multiple Fiber and Cast Posts on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth with Wide Root Canals. Biomed Res Int 2018;2018:1671498. DOI: 10.1155/2018/1671498.
  3. Torbjorner A, Fransson B. A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthod 2004;17:369–376.
  4. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, et al. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003;195:43–48. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810278.
  5. Bonchev A, Radeva E, et al. Fiber Reinforced Composite Posts - A Review of Literature. Int J Sci Res October 2017;6(10):1887–1893.
  6. Fischer DE. Benefits of Fiber Posts: Clinical Application of a New Post System | Dentistry Today February; 2008. pp. 1–9, https://www.dentistrytoday.com/endodontics/1024--sp-835130998?tmpl=component&print=1.
  7. https://www.gcindiadental.com/wp-content/uploads/brochures/Everstick_Booklet.pdf.
  8. Vats A, Srivastava S, et al. High strength and bonding achieved with new flexible EverStick posts: A case report. Endodontology 2016;28:188–191. DOI: 10.4103/0970-7212.195429.
  9. Pegoretti A, Fambri L, et al. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials 2002;23(13):2667–2682. DOI: 10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00407-0.
  10. Silva NR, Castro CG, et al. Influence of different post design and composition on stress distribution in maxillary central incisor: Finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(2):37.
  11. Dean JP, Jeansonne BG, et al. In vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber post. J Endod 1998;24:807–810. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80007-1.
  12. Preethi GA, Kala M. Clinical evaluation of carbon fiber reinforced carbon endodontic post, glass fiber reinforced post with cast post and core: A one year comparative clinical study. J Conserv Dent 2008;11(4):162–167. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.48841.
  13. Dikbas I, Tanalp J. An Overview of Clinical Studies on Fiber Post Systems. Sci World J 2013;2013:171380. DOI:10.1155/2013/171380.
  14. Chauhan P, Miglani A, et al. A comparative evaluation of fractured resistance of custom made Post and everStick post system in endodontically treated teeth- An in vitro study. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3(1):78–80.
  15. Chunawalla YK, Zingade SS, et al. Glass Fibre Reinforced Composite Resin Post & Core In Decayed Primary Anterior Teeth – A Case Report. Int J Clin Dent Sci 2011;2(1):55–59.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.