This in-vitro study was conducted to compare structural reinforcement with composite resin and two different types of posts in structurally compromised teeth.

Methods and Materials:

Forty-eight human maxillary central incisors were instrumented and obturated. Specimens were randomly divided into four groups. The control group was not compromised and was just restored with a resin composite. In the composite-reinforced group, the access cavity of the compromised teeth was restored only with composite to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). In the reinforced glass fiber post group, the compromised cervical area of the teeth was reinforced with a dual-cured composite and a glass fiber post. The reinforced metal cast post group was reinforced with a dual-cured composite and a casting post. The mean fracture load was measured. Data were analyzed by SPSS software using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and chi-square statistical analysis tests. For pair comparison, Duncan was used. P<0.05 was considered statistically significant.


The highest fracture resistance values were for the non-compromised samples (170.12 ± 12.44), while the lowest values were for the compromised ones restored only with the resin composite (71.40 ± 17.00). There was no statistically significant difference between the mean fracture resistances of the fiber (129.36 ± 21.34) and cast (116.60 ± 22.60) post groups (P>0.05).


The use of a composite resin in a root with thin walls will reinforce the compromised tooth, but the type of the post will not influence the final results.

Keywords: Composite resin, Fracture resistance, Post and core technique, Permanent teeth, Resin cements, Tooth resorption.
Fulltext HTML PDF ePub