Influence of Different Diameters and Materials of Posts on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth

Abstract:

Objective: To evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth reinforced with cast titanium posts and prefabricated glass-fiber posts with different diameters. Materials and Methods: 50 recently extracted human maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and randomly divided into 5 groups of 10 specimens each: Group A: 1.35mm diameter of cast titanium post; Group B: 1.5mm diameter of cast titanium post; Group C: 1.375mm diameter of prefabricated fiber post; Group D: 1.5mm diameter of prefabricated fiber post; Group E: resin restoration. All specimens were subjected to fracture resistance testing in a universal testing machine, statistical analysis was performed and the fracture modes were analyzed. Results: The mean fracture resistance of five groups as follows: 404.22±73.92N for group A, 488.17±78.68N for group B, 280.32±45.23N for group C, 317.53±50.87N for group D, 222.76±38.67N for group E. The fracture resistance of restored teeth between group C and group D had no significant difference (P>0.05). The fracture resistance of the rest pairwise group comparisons had significant difference (P<0.05). Most of cast post samples fractured at the root middle or apical portion, while most of the fiber post samples fractured at the root cervical or post fracture, which could be retreated. Conclusion: Human maxillary central incisors restored with cast posts could bear higher fracture load and fiber post could protect the root from fracture preferably.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volume 633)
• Pages: 286-289
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.633.286
• Online since: November 2014
• Authors: Li Xian Zhang, Yu Xiao Liu, Ya Li Liu, Qiong Rong
• Keywords: Cast Post, Diameter, Fiber Post, Fracture Resistance

References

[1] Kivanç BH, Alaçam T, Ulusoy OI, et al. Fracture resistance of thin-walled roots restored with different post systems[J]. Int Endod J, 2009, 42(11): 997–1003.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01609.x

[2] Du JK, Lin WK, Wang CH, et al. FEM analysis of the mandibular first premolar with different post diameters[J]. Odontology, 2011, 99(2): 148-154.

DOI: 10.1007/s10266-011-0011-8

[3] Yoldas O, Akova T, Uysal H. An experimental analysis of stresses in simulated flared root canals subjected to various post-core applications[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2005, 32(6): 427-432.

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01440.x

[4] Clavijo VG, Reis JM, Kabbach W, et al. Fracture strength of flared bovine roots restored with different intraradicular posts[J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2009, 17(6): 574-578.

DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000600007

[5] Ferrario VF, Sforza C, Serrao G, et al. Single tooth bite forces in healthy young adults[J]. J Oral Rehabil, 2004, 31(1): 18-22.

DOI: 10.1046/j.0305-182x.2003.01179.x

[6] Gao Jy, Wang Dl, Kong L, et al. Parametric human maxillary central incisor 3D finite element model of pile nuclear crown diameter and length variable biomechanical optimization [J]. Chinese Journal of clinical rehabilitation, 2010, 14 (35): 6512-6516.

[7] Al-Omiri MK, Mahmoud AA, Rayyan MR, et al. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with post-retained restorations: An overview[J]. J Endod, 2010, 36(9): 1439-1449.

DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.005

[8] Hegde J, Ramakrishna, Bashetty K, et al. An in vitro evaluation of fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with simulated flared root canals restored with different post and core systems[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2012, 15(3): 223-227.

DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.97942

[9] Hayashi M, Sugeta A, Takahashi Y, et al．Static and fatigue fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restorted with post-cores[J]. Dent Mater, 2008, 24(9): 1178-1186.

DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2008.01.009