Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Does an intracanal composite anchorage replace posts?

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to assess the effectiveness of an intracanal composite anchorage to replace conventionally cemented titanium or bonded glass fibre posts.

Materials and methods

Post space preparation was performed up to depths of 6 mm (groups 1 and 2) and 3 mm (group 3) in root filled mandibular premolars. In group 1, titanium posts were cemented with zinc phosphate cement. Glass fibre posts were adhesively cemented in group 2 using a dual-cure composite resin. In group 3, intracanal anchorage was solely performed with a dual-cure composite. All teeth were restored with standardised direct composite crowns without a ferrule. After thermo-mechanical loading, static load was applied until failure. Fracture patterns were assessed, and a microscopic analysis was performed to analyse the occurrence of additional cracks.

Results

Group 2 revealed a significantly higher median fracture value (408 N) than groups 1 and 3, while no difference was detected between group 1 (290 N) and group 3 (234 N) (p = .1417). In group 3, the more favourable fracture patterns were observed. However, the majority of teeth within this fracture category revealed additional minor cracks of the root.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, adhesive intracanal anchorage to a depth of 3 mm with resin composite only has the same fracture resistance as titanium posts conventionally cemented to a depth of 6 mm. Even teeth with repairable main fractures exhibited additional dentinal cracks on the root.

Clinical relevance

Additional dentinal root cracks in the teeth with repairable main fractures may considerably impair their longevity.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW (2004) Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 30:289–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. DeSort KD (1983) The prosthodontic use of endodontically treated teeth: theory and biomechanics of post preparation. J Prosthet Dent 49:203–206

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC (1978) Retention of endodontic dowels: effects of cement, dowel length, diameter, and design. J Prosthet Dent 39:400–405

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Souza EM, do Nascimento LM, Maia Filho EM, do Alves CM (2011) The impact of post preparation on the residual dentin thickness of maxillary molars. J Prosthet Dent 106:184–190

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Perdigao J, Gomes G, Lee IK (2006) The effect of silane on the bond strengths of fiber posts. Dent Mater 22:752–758

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kutesa-Mutebi A, Osman YI (2004) Effect of the ferrule on fracture resistance of teeth restored with prefabricated posts and composite cores. Afr Health Sci 4:131–135

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Pereira JR, Valle AL, Shiratori FK, Ghizoni JS, Melo MP (2009) Influence of intraradicular post and crown ferrule on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth. Braz Dent J 20:297–302

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Lima AF, Spazzin AO, Galafassi D, Correr-Sobrinho L, Carlini-Junior B (2010) Influence of ferrule preparation with or without glass fiber post on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Appl Oral Sci 18:360–363

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Massa F, Dias C, Blos CE (2010) Resistance to fracture of mandibular premolars restored using post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int 41:49–57

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH (2005) Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 38:230–237

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Brosh T, Porat N, Vardimon AD, Pilo R (2011) Appropriateness of viscoelastic soft materials as in vitro simulators of the periodontal ligament. J Oral Rehab 38:929–939

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Büttel L, Krastl G, Lorch H, Naumann M, Zitzmann NU, Weiger R (2009) Influence of post fit and post length on fracture resistance. Int Endod J 42:47–53

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Krejci I, Mueller E, Lutz F (1994) Effects of thermocycling and occlusal force on adhesive composite crowns. J Dent Res 73:1228–1232

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R (2007) Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 23:138–144

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, Beuer F, Frankenberger R (2008) Is adhesive cementation of endodontic posts necessary? J Endod 34(8):1006–1010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Duret B, Reynaud M, Duret F (1990) A new concept of corono-radicular reconstruction, the Composipost. Chir Dent Fr 60:69–77

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Schmitter M, Rammelsberg P, Lenz J, Scheuber S, Schweizerhof K, Rues S (2010) Teeth restored using fiber-reinforced posts: in vitro fracture tests and finite element analysis. Acta Biomat 6:3747–3754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Akkayan B, Gulmez T (2002) Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 87:431–437

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Barjau-Escribano A, Sancho-Bru JL, Forner-Navarro L, Rodriguez-Cervantes PJ, Perez-Gonzalez A, Sanchez-Marin FT (2006) Influence of prefabricated post material on restored teeth: fracture strength and stress distribution. Oper Dent 31:47–54

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Giovani AR, Vansan LP, de Sousa Neto MD, Paulino SM (2009) In vitro fracture resistance of glass-fiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. J Prosthet Dent 101:183–188

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S (2006) Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 22:477–485

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E (2003) Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 89:360–367

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Stewardson DA, Shortall AC, Marquis PM (2011) The effect of the elastic modulus of endodontic posts on static load failure. Int Endod J 44:458–468

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Barreto MS, RdA M, da Rosa RA, Moreira CHC, Só MVR, Bier CAS (2012) Vertical root fractures and dentin defects: effects of root canal preparation, filling, and mechanical cycling. J Endod 38:1135–1139

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Kinney JH, Marshall SJ, Marshall GW (2003) The mechanical properties of human dentin: a critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 14:13–29

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Nalla RK, Imbeni V, Kinney JH, Staninec M, Marshall SJ, Ritchie RO (2003) In vitro fatigue behavior of human dentin with implications for life prediction. J Biomed Mater Res A 66:10–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Sterzenbach G, Rosentritt M, Frankenberger R, Paris S, Naumann M (2012) Loading standardization of postendodontic restorations in vitro: impact of restorative stage, static loading, and dynamic loading. Oper Dent 37:71–79

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Juloski J, Radovic I, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M (2012) Ferrule effect: a literature review. J Endod 38:11–19

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Jotkowitz A, Samet N (2010) Rethinking ferrule-a new approach to an old dilemma. Br Dent J 209:25–33

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Grandini S, De Sanctis M, Goracci C (2007) Post placement affects survival of endodontically treated premolars. J Dent Res 86:729–734

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University of Basel, Switzerland, Hebelstrasse 3, CH-4056, Basel, Switzerland

    Gabriel Krastl, Andres Izquierdo, Leonard Büttel, Nicola U. Zitzmann & Roland Weiger

  2. Department of Prosthodontics, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Marc Schmitter

Authors
  1. Gabriel Krastl
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Andres Izquierdo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Leonard Büttel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nicola U. Zitzmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc Schmitter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Roland Weiger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel Krastl.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Krastl, G., Izquierdo, A., Büttel, L. et al. Does an intracanal composite anchorage replace posts?. Clin Oral Invest 18, 147–153 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0964-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0964-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation