Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2008; 02(01): 23-28
DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697349
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Evaluation of Different Post Lengths’ Effect on Fracture Resistance of a Glass Fiber Post System

Necdet Adanir
a   Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, S. Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey.
,
Sema Belli
b   Professor, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey.
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 September 2019 (online)

Also available at
  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of different post lengths upon root fracture resistance.

Methods: 78 maxillary central teeth with similar dimensions were mounted in acrylic blocks with artificial silicone periodontal ligaments. Combinations of post lengths of 6 mm (shorter than 1/1 clinical crown length), 9 mm (1/1 clinical crown length), and 12 mm (longer than 1/1 clinical crown length) made up 6 different groups consisting of 13 teeth each. The glass fiber posts (Snowpost) were cemented with Super-Bond C&B and Panavia F luting cement. Composite-resin cores were made with Clearfil PhotoCore. The specimens were tested in a universal test machine. The testing machine applied controlled loads to the core, 2 mm from its incisal edge, on the palatal side at an angle 135 degrees to the long axis of the root. The testing machine was set at a crosshead speed of 5mm per minute. All samples were loaded until failure.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference between cements (P>.05). Posts shorter than clinical crown length, demonstrated root fracture under significantly lower loading forces (P<.05).

Conclusion: Usage of posts shorter than clinical crowns should be avoided to eliminate clinical failure. (Eur J Dent 2008;2:23-28)

Key words:

Post length - Fiber post - Fracture resistance - Resin cement - Root canal treatment
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 1989; 15: 512-516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63: 529-536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle?. J Endodon 1992; 18: 332-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Carter JM, Sorensen SE, Johnson RR, Teitelbaum RL, Levine MS. Punch shear testing of extracted vital and endodontically treated teeth. J Biomech 1983; 16: 841-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hudis SI, Goldstein GR. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a review of the literature. J Prosthet Dent 1986; 55: 33-38
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Plasmans PJ, Welle PR, Vrijhoef MM. In vitro resistance of composite resin dowel and cores. J Endod 1988; 14: 300-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 565-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 DeSort KD. The prosthodontic use of endodontically treated teeth: theory and biomechanics of post preparation. J Prosthet Dent 1983; 49: 203-206
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kern SB, von Fraunhofer JA, Mueninghoff LA. An in vitro comparison of two dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 51: 509-514
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Goldberg AJ, Burstone CJ. The use of continuous fiber reinforcement in dentistry. Dent Mater 1992; 8: 197-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence ofvertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent 1999; 81: 262-269
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Eskitascioglu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis). J Endod 2002; 28: 629-633
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 64: 419-424
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post developed for the restoration of pulpless teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 599-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Purton DG, Love RM. Rigidity and retention of carbon fiber versus stainless steel root canal posts. Int Endod J 1996; 29: 262-265
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ferrari M, Vichi A, Grandini S. Efficacy of different adhesive techniques on bonding to root canal walls: an SEM investigation. Dent Mater 2001; 17: 422-429
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Kalkan M, Usumez A, Ozturk AN, Belli S, Eskitascioglu G. Bond strength between root dentin and three glass-fiber post systems. JProsthetDent 2006; 96: 41-46
    Google Scholar
  • 18 Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK. ed. Endodontics. London: BC Decker Inc.; 2002: 922
    Google Scholar
  • 19 Assif D, Bitenski A, Pilo R, Oren E. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1993; 69: 36-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Isidor F, Odman P, Brandum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Prosthodont 1996; 9: 131-136
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Cobankara FK, Ungor M, Belli S. The effect of two different root canal sealers and smear layer on resistance to root fracture. J Endod 2002; 28: 606-609
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Lauer HC, Ottl P, Weigl P. Mechanical load-bearing capacity of various post-and-core systems. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 1994; 49: 985-985
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Ottl P, Hahn L, Lauer CH, Fay M. Fracture characteristics of carbon fibre, ceramic and non-palladium endodontic post systems at monotonously increasing loads. J Oral Rehabil 2002; 29: 175-183
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Hu YH, Pang LC, Hsu CC, Lau YH. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with four post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int 2003; 34: 349-353
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 89: 360-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Alaçam T. Endodonti. Ankara: Barṣ yayınları; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 27 Adanir N, Belli S, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G. Bir cam fiber post sistemiyle restore edilmiṣ üst birinci kesici diṣ modelinde post uzunluḡunun fonksiyonel kuvvetler altinda oluṣan stress daḡılımına etkisi. Türk Dişhekimliği Dergisi 2005; 59: 8-12
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Nissan J, Dmitry Y, Assif D. The use of reinforced composite resin cement as compensation for reduced post length. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 86: 304-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Braga NM, Paulino SM, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Vansan LP. Removal resistance of glass-fiber and metallic cast posts with different lengths. J Oral Sci 2006; 48: 15-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Yang HS, Lang LA, Molina A, Felton DA. The effects of dowel design and load dirction on dowel-and-core restorations. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 85: 558-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 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
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Goodacre CJ, Kan JYK. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. In: Ingle JI, Bakland LK. ed. Endodontics. London: BC Decker Inc.; 2002: 928
    Google Scholar