Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolar Restored With Different Fibre Post System
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Aims: The aim of this study is to determine and compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different fibre reinforced post system.
Materials and Method: A total number of 45 non-carious, single rooted human mandibular premolar teeth were selected, which were extracted for orthodontic and periodontal purpose only. After decoronation, single cone obturation and post space preparation Teeth were randomly allocated into 3 groups. Group A: Zirconia modified cylindrical fibre post (n=15); Group B: Tapered Glass fibre post (n=15); Group C: Double tapered fibre post (n=15). The different fibre post systems were cemented with paracore dual cured resin cement. Each specimen was mounted in acrylic block. Compressive loading was applied using Universal testing machine at a speed of 1mm/min in Apical direction till fracture. The fracture load was measured in newtons and converted to megapascals.
Results: Statical analysis was done. Fracture resistance of human mandibular premolar teeth restored with zirconia modified cylindrical post system (Dentsply Easypost) has highest fracture resistance among the groups tested and statistically significant than the other groups. teeth restored with double tapered glass fibre post (Angelus Exacto) has lowest fracture resistance among the groups tested.
Conclusion: Within the parameters and limitations of this study it may be concluded that Fracture resistance of human mandibular premolar teeth restored with zirconia modified cylindrical post system (Dentsply Easypost) has highest fracture resistance among the groups tested.
Files
ARKA.pdf
Files
(701.7 kB)
| Name | Size | Download all |
|---|---|---|
|
md5:f76cd2d48cdb37f429243ed674e028d0
|
701.7 kB | Preview Download |
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1992; 67(4):458-67. 2. Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology. 1972; 34(4):661-70. 3. Rivera EM, Yamauchi M. Site comparisons of dentine collagen cross-links from extracted human teeth. Archives of oral biology. 1993; 38(7):541-6. 4. 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. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2007; 97(2):93-8. 5. King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post developed for the restoration of pulpless teeth. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation. 1990; 17(6):599-609. 6. Teixeira EC, Teixeira FB, Piasick JR, Thompson JY. An in vitro assessment of prefabricated fiber post systems. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2006; 137(7):1006-12. 7. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Retention and failure morphology of prefabricated posts. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2004; 17(3). 8. Ingle JI, Barkland LF, Baumgater JC: Ingale Endodontics. 6th edition, 2008. 9. Hargreaves K M, Cohen S, Berman L H: Cohen's Pathway of pulp. Mosby Publishers1oth Edition, 2011. 10. Nergiz I, Schmage P, Özcan M, Platzer U. Effect of length and diameter of tapered posts on the retention. Journal of oral rehabilitation. 2002; 29(1):28-34. 11. RUD J, OMNELL KA. Root fractures due to corrosion diagnostic aspects. European Journal of Oral Sciences. 1970; 78(1‐4):397-403. 12. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post systems: a literature review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1999; 81(4):380- 13. Qualtrough AJ, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Operative Dentistry. 2003; 28(1): 86-91. 14. Fredriksson M, Astbäck J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by ~ 201 ~ International Journal of Applied Dental Sciences carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1998; 80(2):151-7. 15. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. American journal of dentistry. 2000; 13(Spec No):9B-13B. 16. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: a literature review. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 2003; 90(6):556-62. 17. Lassila LV, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, Narva K, Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dental Materials. 2004; 20(1):29-36. 18. Mitsui FH, Marchi GM, Pimenta LA, Ferraresi PM. In vitro study of fracture resistance of bovine roots using different intraradicular post systems. Quintessence international. 2004; 35(8). 19. Christensen GJ. Posts and cores: state of the art. Journal of the American Dental Association (1939). 1998; 129(1):96-7. 20. Federick DR. An application of the dowel and composite resin core technique. The Journal of prosthetic dentistry. 1974; 32(4):420-4. 21. Christensen GJ. Post concepts are changing. Journal American Dental Association. 2004; 135(9):1308-10. 22. Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Dietrich T. Survival of glass fibre reinforced composite post restorations after 2 years—an observational clinical study. Journal of dentistry. 2005; 33(4):305-12.