Journal of Contemporary Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2017 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study

Sabita M Ram, Naisargi Shah, Amit M Gaikwad

Citation Information : Ram SM, Shah N, Gaikwad AM. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent 2017; 7 (2):97-102.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10031-1193

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-08-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim

To comparatively evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with light-cured composite resin core using two different designs of prefabricated metal posts.

Materials and methods

A total of 30 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected for the study and endodontically treated. Teeth were sectioned 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction and were randomly divided into two groups (n = 15). Teeth in group I were restored with Parallel post—EG post and group II with parallel post with coronal flare—i post. Light-cured composite core buildup was done in all samples using a customized core former. Compressive load was applied at a 135° angle to the long axis of the tooth at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/minute until visible signs of fracture were observed. Levene's test and t-test were used to determine the difference of the failure loads between the groups (α = 0.05).

Results

The mean values (standard deviation [SD]) for fracture resistance were 295.55 N and 469.59 N for parallel post—EG post and parallel post with coronal flare—i post respectively. Since the p-value for the t-test is less than 0.05, it indicates that we should reject null hypothesis and conclude that the mean fracture load of parallel post with coronal flare—i post is significantly more than that of mean fracture load of parallel post—EG post.

Conclusion

The study conducted evaluated that the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with parallel post with coronal flare—i post and core buildup had better strength as compared with parallel post—EG post and core buildup.

Clinical significance

The present study will help the clinician to select the appropriate prefabricated metal post that will fit exactly into the coronal flare of the canal improving clinical performance, thus increasing the longevity of the restoration.

How to cite this article

Gaikwad AM, Shah N, Ram SM. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth restored with Composite Resin Core using Two Different Designs of Prefabricated Metal Posts: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent 2017;7(2):97-102.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Post and cores: past to present. Int Dent SA 2010 Jan;12(2):20-28.
  2. Restoration options with post and core: review article. J Ahmedabad Dent Coll Hosp 2013;4(1):10-14.
  3. Prefabricated post and core material versus custom-cast post and core in a maxillary first premolar tooth: review of literature and management of a clinical case. Cairo Dent J 1998;14(1):23-26.
  4. A comparative evaluation of stress distribution in endodontically treated maxillary central incisor by three prefabricated metal posts—a three dimensional finite element study. J Contemp Dent 2015 Sep-Dec;5(3):123-130.
  5. Disinfection methods of extracted human teeth. JOHCD 2007 May;1(2):27-29.
  6. Rethinking ferrule—a new approach to an old dilemma. Br Dent J 2010 Jul;209(1):25-33.
  7. An in vitro evaluation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post developed for the restoration of pulpless teeth. J Oral Rehab 1990 Nov;17(6):599-609.
  8. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study. Arch Orofac Sci 2010 Aug;5(2):36-41.
  9. Effect of different luting cements on fracture resistance in endodontically treated teeth. Iran Endod J 2008 Fall;3(4):97-102.
  10. Biocompatibility of a glass ionomer luting agent. Crown cementation. Am J Dent 1991 Jun;4(3):131-141.
  11. Influence of core finishing intervals on tensile strength of cast post and core luted with zinc phosphate cements. Braz Oral Res 2012 Jul-Aug;26(4):378-383.
  12. Fluoride release of glass ionomer-based luting cements in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 1999 Aug;82(2):172-176.
  13. The glass-ionomer cement: a new translucent dental filling material. J Appl Chem Biotechnol 1971 Nov;21(11):313.
  14. Seating and retention of complete crowns with a new adhesive resin cement. J Prosthet Dent 1992 Apr;67(4):478-483.
  15. Dimensional stability of composite used as a core material. J Prosthet Dent 1986 Nov;56(5):554-561.
  16. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated roots after restoration. J Oral Rehabil 1998 Nov;25(11):809-813.
  17. Fracture resistance of three post and core systems in endodontically treated teeth restored with all ceramic crowns. King Saud Univ J Dent Sci 2012 Jan;3(1):33-38.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.