The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 1 ( January, 2008 ) > List of Articles


Fracture Resistance of Endodontically-treated Teeth Restored Using Three Root-reinforcement Methods

Soodabeh Kimyai, Horieh Moosavi, Fathemeh Maleknejad

Citation Information : Kimyai S, Moosavi H, Maleknejad F. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically-treated Teeth Restored Using Three Root-reinforcement Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (1):30-37.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-1-30

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-03-2009

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; The Author(s).



The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated anterior teeth with their roots reinforced using three different restorative methods.

Methods and Materials

Forty sound maxillary human central incisors were randomly assigned to four groups (n=10). The crowns of the teeth were removed at a level 2 mm incisal to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). After root canal therapy, flared canals were simulated in three groups. In the first, second, and third groups the flared canals were reinforced with resin composite (RCO) (Clearfil DC Core Automix), two Reforpins (REF), and a resin cement (RCE) (Panavia F 2.0), respectively. In the fourth (DEN) group flared canals were not created. The same size fiber reinforced composite (FRC) posts were cemented with resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) in all groups. After post cementation and restoration of the teeth crown with a core build-up composite (Clearfil Photo Core), the roots of the teeth were embedded in acrylic resin blocks up to 1 mm below the CEJ. The samples were loaded in an Instron testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min at a 45° angle to the long axis of the tooth on the palatal surfaces until failure occurred. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and Chi-square tests (p=0.05).


Significant differences were found between fracture resistance in all of the groups (P<0.05) with the exception being among the RCO and REF groups. The least mean value 230 (130) N and the highest mean value 830 (220) N were shown in the fracture resistance of the RCE and DEN groups, respectively.


Reforpin can be used as an alternative to resin composite for internal reinforcement of weakened roots according to the results of this study. For reinforcement of flared canals, fiber posts along with Reforpin or resin composite proved to have higher fracture resistance than resin cement. Non flared canals had the highest fracture resistance.


Moosavi H, Maleknejad F, Kimyai S. Fracture Resistance of Endodontically-treated Teeth Restored Using Three Root-reinforcement Methods. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 January; (9)1:030-037.

PDF Share
  1. A comparative study of fracture resistance between morphologic dowel and cores and a resin reinforced dowel system in the intrardicular restoration of structurally compromised roots. Quintessence Int 1996; 27:483-91.
  2. Composite resin reinforcements of flared canals using light-transmitting plastic posts. Quintessence Int 1994; 25:313-9.
  3. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89:360-7.
  4. Non-metal posts. Dent Adv 2003; 20:523-6.
  5. Effect of thermocycling on the retention of glass-fiber root canal posts. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:366-9.
  6. Retrieved online 3, October, 2005 from:
  7. Root reinforcement with a resin–bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:10-4.
  8. A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2004; 17:369-76.
  9. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores: a review. Quintessence Int 2005; 36:737-46.
  10. Load capability of excessively flared teeth restored with fiberreinforced composite posts and all-ceramic crowns. Oper Dent 2006; 31:699-704.
  11. Bonding of an auto adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 2004; 20:963-71.
  12. Efficacy of different adhesive techniques on bonding to root walls: an SEM investigation. Dent Mater 2001; 17:422-9.
  13. Strengthening immature teeth during and after apexification. J Endodo 1998; 24:256-9.
  14. The dentin-root complex: Anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67:458-67.
  15. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with four post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:349-53.
  16. Effect of a crown ferrule on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006; 95:50-4.
  17. A preliminary electromyography study of bite force and jaw-closing muscle fatigue in human subjects with advanced tooth wear. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17:311-8.
  18. Wear of composite resin veneering materials in a dual-axis chewing simulator. J Oral Rehabil 1999; 26:372-8.
  19. Evaluation of load testing of postendodontic restorations in vitro: Compressive loading, gradual cycling loading and chewing simulation. Part B: Applied Biomaterials. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2005; 74:829-34.
  20. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 10:26-6.
  21. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002; 87:431-7.
  22. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots after restoration. J Oral Rehabil 1998; 25:809-13.
  23. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with two different post-andcore designs cemented with two different cements: an in vitro study. Part 1. Quintessence Int 2003; 34:301-6.
  24. Root fracture in endodontically treated teeth related to post selection and crown design. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 68:428-35.
  25. Effect of dentinal bonded resin post-core preparations on resistance to vertical root fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:768-72.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.