Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences
Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences Login  | Users Online: 858  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 
    Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current Issue | Past Issues | Instructions | Online submission




 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 236-239  

An in vitro evaluation of fracture resistance strength of different post systems in endodontically treated teeth


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Anjaneya Institute of Dental Sciences, Calicut, Kerala, India
2 Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Date of Web Publication28-May-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shabna Moyin
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Anjaneya Institute of Dental Sciences, Calicut, Kerala
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_306_18

Rights and Permissions
   Abstract 

Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance strength of different post systems in endodontically treated teeth. Materials and Methods: Freshly extracted 60 single-rooted first premolars were selected for this study. Conventional step-back technique was used to prepare a canal for all the teeth. Obturation was carried out and post space was created using a Peeso reamer. All teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 samples in each group: Group I, teeth inserted with prefabricated carbon posts; Group II, teeth inserted with prefabricated zirconia posts; and Group III, teeth inserted with prefabricated everStick posts. Core buildup was performed using light-cured composite resin. Compressive load required to fracture the tooth was measured using a universal testing machine. Results: The compressive strength of zirconia posts was highest with a mean of 796.10±20.78 followed by carbon posts (628.22±18.11) and lower compressive strength was exhibited by everStick posts (534.13±19.98). An analysis of variance revealed a statistically highly significant difference (P < 0.005) among the different posts used, and a statistically significant difference between carbon posts vs. zirconia posts, carbon posts vs. everStick posts, and zirconia posts vs. everStick posts (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Zirconia posts show the maximum fracture resistance than the carbon posts and everStick posts.

Keywords: Compressive strength, fracture resistance, post systems, universal testing machine


How to cite this article:
Moyin S, Chaturvedi S, Alqahtani NM, Shariff M, Abdelmonem AM, Alfarsi MA. An in vitro evaluation of fracture resistance strength of different post systems in endodontically treated teeth. J Pharm Bioall Sci 2019;11, Suppl S2:236-9

How to cite this URL:
Moyin S, Chaturvedi S, Alqahtani NM, Shariff M, Abdelmonem AM, Alfarsi MA. An in vitro evaluation of fracture resistance strength of different post systems in endodontically treated teeth. J Pharm Bioall Sci [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Jun 27];11, Suppl S2:236-9. Available from: http://www.jpbsonline.org/text.asp?2019/11/6/236/258848




   Introduction Top


Root canal–treated teeth with less tooth structure are often restored with the crowns. In teeth with substantial hard tissue loss resulting from cavities or trauma, posts are often necessary for providing sufficient retention for the core material. Although posts have been recommended to strengthen the teeth, several investigators have cautioned that posts with inadequate resistance to rotational forces can weaken the teeth.[1]

The prime objectives of post and core procedure are to build missing coronal structure and to provide sufficient retention and resistance form to final restoration. In earlier days, custom-made post and core restoration was one of the popular methods to restore endodontically treated teeth. Later on, prefabricated posts gained importance due to reduced time and feasibility.[2]

In cases where most of the coronal portion is lost, a common method to restore such teeth is the use of a post and core, onto which a full crown is cemented.[3] The dowel is a post or other relatively rigid, restorative material placed in the root of a nonvital tooth also retaining the core. The post functions primarily to aid the retention of the restoration and to protect the tooth by dissipating or distributing forces along the tooth.[4]

The clinical decision is difficult when the situation occurs with open apices, overprepared teeth for previous post-retained restorations, caries, fracture, or internal resorption. These flared root canals with thin dentin walls may require reinforcement and restoration using dentin-bonding agents and composite, posts and cores.[5]

Hence, this study was conducted to evaluate and compare any significant difference in the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three different post systems.


   Materials and Methods Top


The present in vitro study was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Anjaneya Institute of Dental Sciences, Kerala, India.

For this study, freshly extracted 60 single-rooted first premolars that were free of caries and with approximately the same root length were selected. All teeth were carefully examined using a stereomicroscope under ×10 magnification to confirm that they were free of cracks.

To standardize root canal lengths for the experiment, the roots were cut to a uniform length of 14mm. Conventional step-back technique was used to prepare a canal for all the teeth. All canals were cleaned and shaped with hand instrumentation to an ISO K-file size 30 (Dentsply, Ballaigues, Switzerland) as the master apical file to standardize all teeth. During the preparation, all canals were irrigated with 2mL of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution and dried with absorbent paper points. A sealer was coated with gutta-percha points and was placed into the root canals using a lentulo spiral. Canal entrances were sealed with glass ionomer cement and teeth were stored in a saline at 4°C. All teeth were mounted in acrylic resin blocks, with the long axis of the block, midfacial extent of each tooth parallel to the long axis of the block and the midfacial extent of the cementoenamel junction located 2mm coronal to acrylic resin. After 48h, the gutta-percha was removed using a size 2 Peeso reamer (Mani, Japan) until a depth of 10mm, leaving 4mm of gutta-percha at the apex. For standardization, post spaces were perpared using size 2 Tenax post drills in all the roots.

All teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 samples in each group: Group I, teeth inserted with prefabricated carbon posts; Group II, teeth inserted with prefabricated zirconia posts; and Group III, teeth inserted with prefabricated everStick posts.

Core build up

Light-cured composite resin, which consists of hybrid BISGMA composite resin of particle size 2–5mm and weight of 80%, was used for core build up.

Testing procedure

All specimens were stored in artificial saliva for 24h prior to the mechanical testing. Compressive load required to fracture the tooth was measured using a universal testing machine. Compressive load was applied at an angle of 130° to the long axis of the tooth, at a crosshead speed of 0.5mm/min until fracture. Load was applied to a small sphere that was placed on the occlusal surface of the prepared teeth at the long axis of the root. Fracture loads were recorded.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was carried out using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey post hoc test; 95% confidence interval with a P value of less than 0.05 was considered to be statistically significant.


   Results Top


[Table 1] depicts the mean compressive strength of different post systems before fracture. The compressive strength of zirconia posts was highest with a mean of 796.10±20.78 followed by carbon posts (628.22±18.11) and lower compressive strength was exhibited by everStick posts (534.13±19.98). An analysis of variance revealed a statistically highly significant difference (P < 0.005) among the different posts used.
Table 1: Assessment of mean compressive strength of different post systems

Click here to view


[Table 2] reveals the multiple comparisons between the different post systems using Tukey post hoc test. This revealed a statistically significant difference between carbon posts vs. zirconia posts, carbon posts vs. everStick posts, and zirconia posts vs. everStick posts (P < 0.05).
Table 2: Multiple comparisons between different post systems using Tukey post hoc test

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Success of post and core treatment depends on case selection, type of post and core used, adhesive resin cement, and operator caliber.[6] Post restoration depends on esthetic requirements, amount of remaining tooth structure, tooth position, and functional load on tooth.[7] Posts can be classified as custom made or prefabricated, metallic or nonmetallic, flexible or stiff, and esthetic or nonesthetic types. Post and core interface is the most common site for tooth fractures. Fracture resistance of restoration with post is directly related to post design, post length, post diameter, core material, and type of cement used.[8] It has been observed that the core structure provides stress transmission from crown to the post and core structure to remaining root dentin. Root fracture occurs when this stress transmission exceeds the withstanding resistance.[9]

The first fiber posts were made of carbon fibers due to their good mechanical properties. However, they were black and thus lacked cosmetic qualities. Although the flexural strength of fiber posts has been shown to be relatively high, large variations in the reported flexural modulus of carbon/graphite fiber posts can be found.[10]

In this study, the carbon posts showed better fracture resistance than everStick posts. One study reported that a carbon fiber–reinforced post had flexural modulus values comparable to a stainless-steel post.[11] Isidor et al.[10] suggested that teeth restored with carbon fiber posts have higher fracture strengths than those with prefabricated titanium posts or cast metal post restoration. A study conducted by Chakmakchi et al.[12] showed that the teeth receiving everStick posts were associated with the highest fracture resistance (1780.30±155.2) in newtons.

Zirconia has attracted the maximum attention because it has the highest flexural strength and fracture toughness of all the existing ceramics. A spontaneous phase transformation occurs internally in zirconia upon the application of an external stress, which tightens the crack tip and prevents crack propagation, leading to an increase in the fracture toughness and flexural strength. The fracture strength of the self-adhesive resin cement is less than that of zirconia, the force that fracture of the zirconia crystals will cause a subsequent fracture throughout the entire self-adhesive resin cement.[13]

In this study, zirconia posts showed maximum fracture resistance followed by carbon posts and everStick posts. This result is similar to that obtained by the study conducted by Yang et al.,[14] which stated that cast post and core had a higher failure threshold including the teeth fracture in accordance with the study conducted by Torabi and Fattahi[15] on the effect of ferrule and bonding agent on the compressive fracture resistance of post and core restorations, and concluded that a ferrule preparation can increase the fracture resistance of teeth with little remaining tooth structure. Limitations of the present study were lower sample size and thermal changes in oral environment, masticatory forces not applied, and an in vitro study.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitations of this study it is concluded that zirconia posts show the maximum fracture resistance than the carbon posts and everStick posts.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Zhi-Yue L, Yu-Xing Z. Effects of post-core design and ferrule on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:368-73.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Vadavadagi SV, Dhananjaya KM, Yadahalli RP, Lahari M, Shetty SR, Bhavana BL. Comparison of different post systems for fracture resistance: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18:205-8.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Wadhwani KK, Shrivastava S, Nigam P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of various post systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2003;6:56-61.  Back to cited text no. 3
  [Full text]  
4.
Makade CS, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, Patil PG. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post core systems—An in-vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont 2011;3:90-5.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Yoldas O, Akova T, Uysal H. An experimental analysis of stresses in simulated flared root canals subjected to various post-core applications. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:427-32.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Saritha MK, Paul U, Keswani K, Jhamb A, Mhatre SH, Sahoo PK. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of different post systems. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7:356-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Michael MC, Husein A, Bakar WZ, Sulaiman E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. Arch Orofac Sci 2010;5:36-41.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
do Valle AL, Pereira JR, Shiratori FK, Pegoraro LF, Bonfante G. Comparison of the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts and composite resin cores with different post lengths. J Appl Oral Sci 2007;15:29-32.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Ok E, Dilber E, Altunsoy M, Kalkan A, Demir N. Comparison of the effect of three different post systems on root fracture. J Res Dent 2014;2:125-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
  [Full text]  
10.
Isidor F, Odman P, Brøndum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9:131-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Torbjörner A, Karlsson S, Syverud M, Hensten-Pettersen A. Carbon fiber reinforced root canal posts. Mechanical and cytotoxic properties. Eur J Oral Sci 1996;104:605-11.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Chakmakchi M, Rasheed R, Suliman R. In vitro comparative assessment of fracture resistance of roots restored with Everstick fiber reinforced composite post. J Oral Dent Res 2015;2:43-50.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Yang Z, Hou YF, Pan XB. [Fracture resistance and failure modes of endodontically treated human teeth restored with four different post-core systems]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008;26:633-5, 639.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Torabi K, Fattahi F. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored by different FRC posts: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:282-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Access Statistics
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  

 
  In this article
    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed61    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded7    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal