Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors Restored with Six Different Post and Core 
Systems

Mosharraf, Ramin; Sabouhi, Mahmood; Mahabadi, Meysam; Behzadi, Ali; Kalantar Motamedi, Mahmood Reza

doi:10.30699/jidai.29.4.168

[Home ] [Archive]

Main Menu

Journal Information

Editorial Policies

Articles archive

For Authors

Contact us

Site Facilities

Search in website

Receive site information

Last site contents
:: Contact Us

Volume 29, Issue 4 (10-2017)

J Iran Dent Assoc 2017, 29(4): 168-176

Back to browse issues page

Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors Restored with Six Different Post and Core Systems

Ramin Mosharraf ^*

¹, Mahmood Sabouhi²

, Meysam Mahabadi³

, Ali Behzadi⁴

, Mahmood Reza Kalantar Motamedi⁵

1- Professor, Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran , mosharraf@dnt.mui.ac.ir
2- Associate Professor, Torabinejad Dental Research Center, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3- Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
4- Dentist, Private Practice, Isfahan, Iran
5- Postgraduate Student, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

Abstract: (4131 Views)

Background and Aim: Different methods and materials are available for post and core (P&C) fabrication. We aimed to compare the fracture resistance and failure modes of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored with six different P&C systems.
Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro study, after endodontic treatment and coronal preparation of 60 maxillary central incisors, six different P&C systems were used: 1) cast base metal P&C, 2) cast gold alloy P&C, 3) zirconia post and casting ceramic core, 4) zirconia post and composite core, 5) titanium post and composite core, and 6) fiber post and composite core. Thermocycling (5-55°C, 60 seconds, 1500 cycles) was performed after cementing the full metal crowns on each tooth. A 130° force was ap-plied at a crosshead speed of 1.5 mm/minute in a universal testing machine. The frac-ture force (N) and fracture patterns were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed by using Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-U-Whitney, and Fisher’s exact tests (α=0.05).
Results: The highest mean fracture resistance was recorded in the first group (904±302.77 N) followed by the third group (725±202.11 N), second group (723±224.15 N), fourth group (675±358.64 N), fifth group (424±156.85 N), and sixth group (416.5±81.58 N). The groups with casting P&Cs and zirconia post and casting core showed significant differences with the other two groups with non-casting cores (P<0.001).
Conclusion: The highest fracture resistance was recorded for cast metal P&C, which may be due to a better stress distribution. Zirconia post and ceramic core may be a proper and aesthetically appealing substitute for cast metal P&C.

Keywords: Composite Resins, Endodontically-Treated Tooth, Post Techniques

Full-Text [PDF 344 kb] (1604 Downloads)

Type of Study: Original | Subject: Prosthodontics

References

1. Mamoun J. Post and core build-ups in crown and bridge abutments: Bio-mechanical ad-vantages and disadvantages. J Adv Prostho-dont. 2017 Jun; 9(3):232-7.

2. Lambjerg-Hansen H, Asmussen E. Mechanical properties of endodontic posts. J Oral Rehabil. 1997 Dec;24(12):882-7.

3. Bhagat A, Mittal L, Mogla S, Kaur T, Dheeraj M, Marwah G. Impact of Root Dentin Thick-ness on the in vitro Compressive Strength of Teeth treated with Recent Post and Core Sys-tems. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Nov;18(11):1065-70.

4. Robbins JW, Earnest LA, Schumann SD. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated cuspids. Am J Dent. 1993 Jun;6(3):159-61.

5. Bergman B, Lundquist P, Sjogren U, Sundquist G. Restorative and endodontic results after treatment with cast posts and cores. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Jan;61(1):10-5.

6. Upadhyaya V, Bhargava A, Parkash H, Chittaranjan B, Kumar V. A finite element study of teeth restored with post and core: Ef-fect of design, material, and ferrule. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016 May-Jun;13(3):233-8.

7. Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 pa-tients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Aug; 80 (2):151-7.

8. Freilich MA. Rationale for the clinical use of fiber-reinforced composites, in: Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Goldberg AJ. Fiber-Reinforced Composites in Clinical Dentis-try. Hanover Park, IL, Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd., 2000:16,17.

9. Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with dif-ferent post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Apr; 87(4):438-45.

10. Pegoretti A, Fambri L, Zappini G, Bianchetti M. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials. 2002 Jul;23(13):2667-82.

11. Plasmans PJ, Visseren LG, Vrijhoef MM, Kayser AF. In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated mo-lars. J Endod. 1986;12(9):382-7.

12. Rosentritt M, Furer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Jul;27(7):595-601.

13. Mollersten L, Lockowandt P, Linden LA. A comparison of strengths of five core and post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int. 2002 Feb; 33(2): 140-9.

14. Saupe WA, Gluskin AH, Radke RA Jr. A comparative study of fracture resistance be-tween morphologic dowel and cores and a resin-reinforced dowel system in the intraradic-ular restoration of structurally compromised roots. Quintessence Int. 1996 Jul;27(7):483-91.

15. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Apr;89(4):360-7.

16. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the inci-dence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems. J Pros-thet Dent. 1999 Mar;81(3):262-9.

17. Raygot CG, Chai J, Jameson DL. Fracture resistance and primary failure mode of endodontically treated teeth restored with a car-bon fiber-reinforced resin post system in vitro. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):141-5.

18. Stockton LW, Williams PT. Retention and shear bond strength of two post systems. Oper Dent. 1999 Jul-Aug;24(4):210-6.

19. Qing H, Zhu Z, Chao Y, Zhang W. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance of anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber and zircon posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2007 Feb; 97(2):93-8.

20. Rosentritt M, Sikora M, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of metallic and tooth-coloured post systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Jul;31(7):675-81.

21. Kilinc HI, Aslan T, Kilic K, Er O, Esim E, Yild-irim S. Fracture resistance of teeth with oval canal morphology restored using oval and circu-lar posts. J Oral Sci. 2016;58(3):339-45.

22. Hou QQ, Gao YM, Sun L. Influence of fiber posts on the fracture resistance of endodontical-ly treated premolars with different dental de-fects. Int J Oral Sci. 2013 Sep;5(3):167-71.

23. Al-Omiri MK, Al-Wahadni AM. An ex vivo study of the effects of retained coronal dentine on the strength of teeth restored with composite core and different post and core systems. Int Endod J. 2006 Nov;39(11):890-9.

24. Butz F, Lennon AM, Heydecke G, Strub JR. Survival rate and fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with moderate defects restored with different post-and- core systems: an in vitro study. Int J Pros-thodont. 2001 Jan-Feb;14(1):58-64.

25. Toksavul S, Toman M, Uyulgan B, Schmage P, Nergiz I. Effect of luting agents and reconstruc-tion techniques on the fracture resistance of pre-fabricated post systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Jun;32(6):433-40.

26. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Apr; 87(4):431-7.

27. Anusavice KJ. Mechanical properties of materials, in: Anusavice KJ, Phillips RW, Shen C, Rawls HR. Phillips' Science of Dental Mate-rials. Philadelphia, St. Louis, MO, Elsevier Science/Saunders, 2013:67.

28. Tan PL, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Stanford CM, Tan SC, Johnson WT, et al. In vitro frac-ture resistance of endodontically treated central incisors with varying ferrule heights and con-figurations. J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Apr;93(4):331-6.

29. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent. 1999 Summer;1(2):153-8.

30. Allen EP, Bayne SC, Brodine AH, Cronin RJ Jr, Donovan TE, Kois JC, et al. Annual review of selected dental literature: report of the Commit-tee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jul;90(1):50-80.

31. Strub JR, Pontius O, Koutayas S. Survival rate and fracture strength of incisors restored with different post and core systems after exposure in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Feb; 28 (2):120-4.

32. Frank RM. Ultrastructure of human dentine 40 years ago--progress and perspectives. Arch Oral Biol. 1999 Dec;44(12):979-84.

33. Naumann M, Metzdorf G, Fokkinga W, Watzke R, Sterzenbach G, Bayne S, et al. Influence of test parameters on in vitro fracture resistance of post-endodontic restorations: a structured review. J Oral Rehabil. 2009 Apr; 36 (4):299-312.

34. Goodis HE, Marshall GW Jr, White JM, Gee L, Hornberger B, Marshall SJ. Storage effects on dentin permeability and shear bond strengths. Dent Mater. 1993 Mar;9(2):79-84.

35. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Le Bell-Ronnlof AM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. In vitro fracture behavior of maxillary premolars with metal crowns and several post-and-core systems. Eur J Oral Sci. 2006 Jun ;114(3):250-6.

36. Leary JM, Aquilino SA, Svare CW. An evaluation of post length within the elastic limits of dentin. J Prosthet Dent. 1987 Mar;57(3):277-81.

37. Cormier CJ, Burns DR, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and fail-ure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar;10(1):26-36.

38. Iqbal MK, Johansson AA, Akeel RF, Bergenholtz A, Omar R. A retrospective analy-sis of factors associated with the periapical sta-tus of restored, endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2003 Jan-Feb;16(1):31-8.

39. Al-Wahadni A, Gutteridge DL. An in vitro investigation into the effects of retained coronal dentine on the strength of a tooth restored with a cemented post and partial core restoration. Int Endod J. 2002 Nov;35(11):913-8.

Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article

‎ 10.30699/jidai.29.4.168

Mendeley

Zotero

RefWorks

Mosharraf R, Sabouhi M, Mahabadi M, Behzadi A, Kalantar Motamedi M R. Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors Restored with Six Different Post and Core Systems . J Iran Dent Assoc 2017; 29 (4) :168-176
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1935-en.html

Rights and permissions
	This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

Volume 29, Issue 4 (10-2017)

Back to browse issues page

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.06 seconds with 37 queries by YEKTAWEB 4645