Comparison of Fracture Resistance among Different Post Placement Strategies and Core Buildup Materials in Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars: An In Vitro Study
Shatha A Alshali, Ayman Abulhamael, Hisham Mously, Narmeen Shikdar
Keywords :
Composite buildup, Core buildup, Fiber post, Flexural strength, LuxaCore Z, Post and core
Citation Information :
Alshali SA, Abulhamael A, Mously H, Shikdar N. Comparison of Fracture Resistance among Different Post Placement Strategies and Core Buildup Materials in Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars: An In Vitro Study. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2024; 14 (2):99-104.
Purpose: To compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars reinforced by one or two fiber-reinforced composites and different core buildup materials.
Materials and methods: A total of 40 double-rooted maxillary premolars were collected and divided into four groups (n = 10/group). After endodontic treatment, the teeth were prepared and received fiber posts as follows: group I—single fiber post with LuxaCore Z as luting cement and core buildup material, group II—two fiber posts with LuxaCore Z as luting cement and core buildup material, group III—single fiber post cemented with RelyX Unicem followed by packable composite as a core buildup material, group IV—two fiber posts cemented with RelyX Unicem followed by packable composite as a core buildup material. The specimens were placed in the universal testing machine for testing of the fracture resistance. Specimens were axially loaded on the center of the occlusal surface. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was done to assess group differences, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference (HSD) post hoc test for multiple comparisons.
Results: Group IV (two fiber posts with resin cement and packable composite resin) had a significantly higher mean fracture resistance (1049.16 ± 125.51 N) compared to group I (874.47 ± 59.94 N), group II (872.16 ± 151.18 N), and group III (979.21 ± 117.45 N). The difference among the groups was statistically significant (p = 0.013). The Tukey's HSD post hoc test results for paired groups revealed that the fracture resistance of group IV was significantly higher than group I (p = 0.030) and group II (p = 0.027).
Conclusion: The restoration of endodontically treated double-rooted premolars using two fiber posts luted with resin cement, followed by packable composite buildup, showed promising performance regarding fracture resistance.
Shafiei F, Dehghanian P, Ghaderi N, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with bulk-fill composite resins: the effect of fiber reinforcement. Dent Res J 2021;18:60. PMID: 34497695.
Topdaği B, Bayindir F. Investigation of fracture strength of current post materials (peek, fiber, cast metal) in different ferrule conditions. Open J Stomatol 2024;14(3):153–172. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2024.143013
Spicciarelli V, Marruganti C, Martignoni M, et al. Different post placement strategies for the restoration of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with two roots: single post vs double post. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(12):1374–1378. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980
Patil DB, Reddy ER, Rani ST, et al. Evaluation of stress in three different fiber posts with two-dimensional finite element analysis. J Indian Soc Pedod Prevent Dent 2021;39(2):178–182. DOI: 10.4103/JISPPD.JISPPD_240_20
Fráter M, Sáry T, Jókai B, et al. Fatigue behavior of endodontically treated premolars restored with different fiber-reinforced designs. Dent Mater 2021;37(3):391–402. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2020.11.026
Sarkis-Onofre R, Pinheiro HA, Poletto-Neto V, et al. Randomized controlled trial comparing glass fiber posts and cast metal posts. J Dent 2020;96:103334. DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2020.103334
Barcelos L, Bicalho A, Veríssimo C, et al. Stress distribution, tooth remaining strain, and fracture resistance of endodontically treated molars restored without or with one or two fiberglass posts and direct composite resin. Operat Dent 2017;42(6):646–657. DOI: 10.2341/16-224-L
Goutam M, Manas A, Chhaparwal A, et al. Assessment of LuxaCore, photo core, and core max II on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with paraposts and fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Pharm Bioal Sci 2022;14(Suppl 1):S965–S967. DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_789_21
Biabani-Sarand M, Bahari M, Abed-Kahnamoui M, et al. Effect of intraradicular reinforcement strategies on the fracture strength of endodontically treated anterior teeth with overflared canals. J Clin Exp Dent 2022;14(1):e79–e84. DOI: 10.4317/jced.58862
Habibzadeh S, Rajati HR, Hajmiragha H, et al. Fracture resistances of zirconia, cast Ni-Cr, and fiber-glass composite posts under all-ceramic crowns in endodontically treated premolars. J Adv Prosthod 2017;9(3):170–175. DOI: 10.4047/jap.2017.9.3.170
Mayya A, Naik R, Mayya SS, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars with a longer single post and shorter double posts of different sizes: an in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Com Dent 2020;10(2):183–184. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_472_19
Thakur A, Ramarao S. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolar teeth reinforced with different prefabricated and custom-made fiber-reinforced post system with two different post lengths: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2019;22(4):376–380. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_52_19
Shrivastava DN, Shaikh DA, Mahule DA, et al. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of different dual cure composite core materials with glass fiber post: an in vitro study. Eur J Mol Clin Med 2021;8(3):2944–2956.
Uctasli S, Boz Y, Sungur S, et al. Influence of post-core and crown type on the fracture resistance of incisors submitted to quasistatic loading. Polymers (Basel) 2021;13(7):1130. DOI: 10.3390/polym13071130
Säilynoja E, Garoushi S, Vallittu PK, et al. Characterization of experimental short-fiber-reinforced dual-cure core build-up resin composites. Polymers (Basel) 2021;13(14):2281. DOI: 10.3390/polym13142281
Spinhayer L, Bui A, Leprince J, et al. Core build-up resin composites: an in-vitro comparative study. Biomater Invest Dent 2020;7(1):159–166. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2020.1838283
Kumbaiah G, Hegde V, Ginjupalli K, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of various core buildup materials on endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2022;14(6):597–602. DOI: 10.4103/jioh.jioh_288_21
Nakade P, Thaore S, Bangar B, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture toughness and flexural strength of four different core build-up materials: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(2):191–195. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3624
Lacerda FC, Vieira-Junior WF, de Lacerda PE, et al. Immediate and long-term microshear bond strength of resin-based cements to core build-up materials. J Clin Expe Dent 2021;13(10):e1030–e1037. DOI: 10.4317/jced.58515
Kumar L, Pal B, Pujari P. An assessment of fracture resistance of three composite resin core build-up materials on three prefabricated non-metallic posts, cemented in endodontically treated teeth: an in vitro study. Peer J 2015;3:e795. DOI: 10.7717/peerj.795
Panitiwat P, Salimee P. Effect of different composite core materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with FRC posts. J Appl Oral Sci 2017;25(2):203–210. DOI: 10.1590/1678-77572016-0306
