OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of the rigidity of different post materials (titanium versus glass fiber reinforced composite [FRC]) on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (ETT). METHOD: Forty-eight caries-free maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned to six groups (n=8). After endodontic treatment, teeth of four groups were flattened 2mm above and two groups at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). As control, specimens of one group received neither composite build-up nor post, and teeth were left empty (E). In another group only a resin composite build-up was placed (C). In two groups, both titanium and FRC posts were inserted. One group with titanium (2/T) and FRC (2/FRC) post received a 2mm deep ferrule preparation. For one group with titanium (0/T) and FRC (0/FRC) post no ferrule design was provided. All-ceramic crowns were adhesively luted on all specimens. Specimens were exposed to thermomechanical loading and finally statically loaded until failure. RESULTS: The median fracture load values (min-max) were: E=317 (242-404); C=387 (335-475); 0/FRC=352 (0-440); 2/FRC=502 (326-561); 0/T=420 (0-548), 2/T=517 (416-653). Statistically significant differences were computed between E, C, 2/FRC, 0/T and 2/T; between C, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/FRC, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/T and 2/T regarding maximum fracture load. SIGNIFICANCE: Fracture resistance of ETT is not influenced by the rigidity of the post material. The combination of ferrule preparation and endodontic post results in higher load resistance after TML than any other build-up design.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of the rigidity of different post materials (titanium versus glass fiber reinforced composite [FRC]) on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (ETT). METHOD: Forty-eight caries-free maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned to six groups (n=8). After endodontic treatment, teeth of four groups were flattened 2mm above and two groups at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). As control, specimens of one group received neither composite build-up nor post, and teeth were left empty (E). In another group only a resin composite build-up was placed (C). In two groups, both titanium and FRC posts were inserted. One group with titanium (2/T) and FRC (2/FRC) post received a 2mm deep ferrule preparation. For one group with titanium (0/T) and FRC (0/FRC) post no ferrule design was provided. All-ceramic crowns were adhesively luted on all specimens. Specimens were exposed to thermomechanical loading and finally statically loaded until failure. RESULTS: The median fracture load values (min-max) were: E=317 (242-404); C=387 (335-475); 0/FRC=352 (0-440); 2/FRC=502 (326-561); 0/T=420 (0-548), 2/T=517 (416-653). Statistically significant differences were computed between E, C, 2/FRC, 0/T and 2/T; between C, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/FRC, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/T and 2/T regarding maximum fracture load. SIGNIFICANCE: Fracture resistance of ETT is not influenced by the rigidity of the post material. The combination of ferrule preparation and endodontic post results in higher load resistance after TML than any other build-up design.
Authors: M Naumann; C Hohmann; A Happe; F Beuer; R Frankenberger; R Seemann; M Rosentritt Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2012-10-27 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Gabriel Krastl; Andres Izquierdo; Leonard Büttel; Nicola U Zitzmann; Marc Schmitter; Roland Weiger Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2013-03-16 Impact factor: 3.573