Paula Pontes Garcia1, Letícia Maíra Wambier2, Juliana Larocca de Geus3, Leonardo Fernandes da Cunha2, Gisele Maria Correr2, Carla Castiglia Gonzaga4. 1. Doctoral student, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positive University (UP), Curitiba, Brazil. 2. Professor, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positive University (UP), Curitiba, Brazil. 3. Professor, Department of Dentistry, Paulo Picanço School of Dentistry, Fortaleza, Brazil. 4. Professor, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Positive University (UP), Curitiba, Brazil. Electronic address: carlacgonzaga2@gmail.com.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The association between tooth type, location in the dental arch, and selection of a post-and-core system for endodontically treated teeth is unclear. Information on the influence of these parameters on the failure rate of teeth treated with post-and-core restorations is needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence on the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library, and Gray literature for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 2526 articles, and 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference in the failure rate of post-and-core restorations placed in anterior and posterior teeth was found in most studies. The risk ratio for anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.64; P=.79). The risk ratio for incisors versus canines was 3.08 (95% CI, 0.56-17.04; P=.20) and that for premolars versus molars was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.12-1.74; P=.25). The risk ratio for prefabricated glass fiber posts on anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.09; P=.70) and that for metal posts was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.64-1.91; P=.72). CONCLUSIONS: The failure rates in anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations were similar at short- to medium-term follow-up. More well-designed clinical trials comparing the survival and failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations with longer follow-up times are needed.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: The association between tooth type, location in the dental arch, and selection of a post-and-core system for endodontically treated teeth is unclear. Information on the influence of these parameters on the failure rate of teeth treated with post-and-core restorations is needed. PURPOSE: The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the available evidence on the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A search was performed in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature database, Brazilian Library in Dentistry, Cochrane Library, and Gray literature for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations. The risk of bias tool from the Cochrane Collaboration was used for quality assessment of the studies. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 2526 articles, and 6 studies were included in the meta-analysis. No difference in the failure rate of post-and-core restorations placed in anterior and posterior teeth was found in most studies. The risk ratio for anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.06 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.64; P=.79). The risk ratio for incisors versus canines was 3.08 (95% CI, 0.56-17.04; P=.20) and that for premolars versus molars was 0.45 (95% CI, 0.12-1.74; P=.25). The risk ratio for prefabricated glass fiber posts on anterior versus posterior teeth was 1.13 (95% CI, 0.61-2.09; P=.70) and that for metal posts was 1.10 (95% CI, 0.64-1.91; P=.72). CONCLUSIONS: The failure rates in anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations were similar at short- to medium-term follow-up. More well-designed clinical trials comparing the survival and failure rates of anterior and posterior teeth treated with post-and-core restorations with longer follow-up times are needed.