RESEARCH ARTICLE


A Comparative Study of Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Compromised Teeth with Different Post Systems: An In Vitro Study



Mohammad Reza Malekipour1, Neda Hosseini2, Niloufar Jafari3, Ali Mazdak2, Peiman Mazaheri2, Farzaneh Shirani4, *
1 Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Azad University, Khorasgan (Isfahan Branch), Iran
2 Dental Students Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Rafsanjan, Iran
4 Dental Materials Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran


Article Metrics

CrossRef Citations:
0
Total Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 186
Abstract HTML Views: 86
PDF Downloads: 99
ePub Downloads: 64
Total Views/Downloads: 435
Unique Statistics:

Full-Text HTML Views: 125
Abstract HTML Views: 55
PDF Downloads: 79
ePub Downloads: 45
Total Views/Downloads: 304



Creative Commons License
© 2023 Malekipour et al.

open-access license: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International Public License (CC-BY 4.0), a copy of which is available at: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode. This license permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

* Address correspondence to this author at the Dental Materials Research Center, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran; Tel: +983132604441; Fax: 00983136686970; E-mail: f_shirani@dnt.mui.ac.ir


Abstract

Aims:

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.

Results:

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).

Conclusion:

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.