Comparison of the Fracture Strength and Fracture Mode of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors Restored with Cast Metal and Glass Fiber Post

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Tetore Olloni, Kujtim Shala

 
For citation: Olloni T, Shala K. Comparison of the Fracture Strength and Fracture Mode of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Incisors Restored with Cast Metal and Glass Fiber Post. International Journal of Biomedicine. 2024;14(4):691-695. doi:10.21103/Article14(4)_OA25
 
Originally published December 5, 2024
 

Abstract: 

Background: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth with post and core systems is integral to restorative dental practice. Endodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to biological and mechanical failure and exhibit a higher fracture risk than vital teeth. The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength (FS) of endodontically treated maxillary incisors restored with cast metal post (CMP) and glass fiber post (GFP) with composite core using a Universal Testing Machine (UTM) and evaluate their fracture mode (FM). 
Methods and Results: Sixty human maxillary incisors were extracted for periodontal reasons and selected based on their similar root canal morphology. All study teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 (n=30) was restored with CMP, and Group 2 was restored with GFP. The posts were luted with the adhesive resin cement Speedcem Plus. Prepared samples were subjected to a compressive load using a UTM (H001B:1000kN, Matest, Italy). Loads were applied at an angle of 135° in the middle of the lingual surfaces of the samples at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Fracture loads and modes were recorded. The maximum load necessary to fracture for each specimen was measured in Newtons (N). Fractures were classified as restorable in the incisal third of the root and catastrophic if located apical to that point. The median FS of Groups 1 and 2 were 161.87±1.36N and 1220.83±2.04N. A comparative analysis of the FS values between CMP and GFP groups showed that the influence of post type on FS was significant (P=0.000). Group 2 exhibited higher strength values. All catastrophic fractures (n=5) belonged to Group 1.  In Group 1, 40% of fractures were in the apical third and middle of roots. In Group 2, all fractures occurred in the incisal third of the roots.
Conclusion:  The results have clinical implications for the selection of materials in dental practices, particularly in contexts where the material's mechanical strength is a critical factor in clinical outcomes.

Keywords: 
endodontically treated incisors • fracture strength • glass fiber post • cast metal post
References: 
  1. Katebzadeh N, Dalton BC, Trope M. Strengthening immature teeth during and after apexification. J Endod. 1998 Apr;24(4):256-9. doi: 10.1016/s0099-2399(98)80108-8. PMID: 9641130.
  2. Marchi GM, Mitsui FH, Cavalcanti AN. Effect of remaining dentine structure and thermal-mechanical aging on the fracture resistance of bovine roots with different post and core systems. Int Endod J. 2008 Nov;41(11):969-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01459.x. PMID: 19133086.
  3. Michael MC, Husein A, Bakar WZ, Sulaimanb E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: An in vitro study. Arch Orofac Sci 2010; 5: 36-41.
  4. Helfer AR, Melnick S, Schilder H. Determination of the moisture content of vital and pulpless teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1972 Oct;34(4):661-70. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(72)90351-9. PMID: 4506724.
  5. Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989 Nov;15(11):512-6. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(89)80191-8. PMID: 2639947.
  6. Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod. 1992 Jul;18(7):332-5. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80483-8. PMID: 1402595.
  7. Makade CS, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, Patil PG. A comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post core systems - an in-vitro study. J Adv Prosthodont. 2011 Jun;3(2):90-5. doi: 10.4047/jap.2011.3.2.90. Epub 2011 Jun 30. PMID: 21814618; PMCID: PMC3141125.
  8. Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Apr;87(4):438-45. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123849. PMID: 12011861.
  9. Kimmel SS. Restoration of endodontically treated tooth containing wide or flared canal. N Y State Dent J. 2000 Dec;66(10):36-40. PMID: 11199524.
  10. Rosentritt M, Fürer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. J Oral Rehabil. 2000 Jul;27(7):595-601. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00548.x. PMID: 10931252.
  11. Zalkind M, Hochman N. Direct core buildup using a preformed crown and prefabricated zirconium oxide post. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Dec;80(6):730-2. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70062-9. PMID: 9830080.
  12. Belli S, Erdemir A, Ozcopur M, Eskitascioglu G. The effect of fibre insertion on fracture resistance of root filled molar teeth with MOD preparations restored with composite. Int Endod J. 2005 Feb;38(2):73-80. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00892.x. PMID: 15667628.
  13. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent. 1999 Summer;1(2):153-8. PMID: 11725680.
  14. Boudrias P, Sakkal S, Petrova Y. Anatomical post design meets quartz fiber technology: rationale and case report. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2001 Apr;22(4):337-40, 342, 344 passim; quiz 350. PMID: 11913279.
  15. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Apr;89(4):360-7. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.75. PMID: 12690348.
  16. Hornbrook DS, Hastings JH. Use of bondable reinforcement fiber for post and core build-up in an endodontically treated tooth: maximizing strength and aesthetics. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1995 Jun-Jul;7(5):33-42; quiz 44. PMID: 7548893.
  17. Kimmel SS. Restoration and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth with a polyethylene ribbon and prefabricated fiberglass post. Gen Dent. 2000 Nov-Dec;48(6):700-6. PMID: 12004666.
  18. Bergman B, Lundquist P, Sjögren U, Sundquist G. Restorative and endodontic results after treatment with cast posts and cores. J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Jan;61(1):10-5. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(89)90099-1. PMID: 2644413.
  19. Creugers NH, Mentink AG, Käyser AF. An analysis of durability data on post and core restorations. J Dent. 1993 Oct;21(5):281-4. doi: 10.1016/0300-5712(93)90108-3. PMID: 8227689.
  20. Qualtrough AJ, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Oper Dent. 2003 Jan-Feb;28(1):86-91. PMID: 12540124.
  21. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamental of Fixed Prosthodontics. Illinois, Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc 1997:202-4.
  22. Allen EP, Bayne SC, Brodine AH, Cronin RJ Jr, Donovan TE, Kois JC, Summitt JB; Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. Annual review of selected dental literature: report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Jul;90(1):50-80. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(03)00299-3. PMID: 12869974.
  23. Toksavul S, Toman M, Uyulgan B, Schmage P, Nergiz I. Effect of luting agents and reconstruction techniques on the fracture resistance of pre-fabricated post systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2005 Jun;32(6):433-40. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2005.01438.x. PMID: 15899022.
  24. Strub JR, Pontius O, Koutayas S. Survival rate and fracture strength of incisors restored with different post and core systems after exposure in the artificial mouth. J Oral Rehabil. 2001 Feb;28(2):120-4. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.2001.00720.x. PMID: 11298259.
  25. Frank RM. Ultrastructure of human dentine 40 years ago--progress and perspectives. Arch Oral Biol. 1999 Dec;44(12):979-84. doi: 10.1016/s0003-9969(99)00109-0. PMID: 10669074.
  26. Naumann M, Metzdorf G, Fokkinga W, Watzke R, Sterzenbach G, Bayne S, Rosentritt M. Influence of test parameters on in vitro fracture resistance of post-endodontic restorations: a structured review. J Oral Rehabil. 2009 Apr;36(4):299-312. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01940.x. Epub 2009 Feb 11. PMID: 19220719.
  27. Goodis HE, Marshall GW Jr, White JM, Gee L, Hornberger B, Marshall SJ. Storage effects on dentin permeability and shear bond strengths. Dent Mater. 1993 Mar;9(2):79-84. doi: 10.1016/0109-5641(93)90079-6. PMID: 8595846.
  28. Martínez-Insua A, da Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with a cast post and core or carbon-fiber post with a composite core. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Nov;80(5):527-32. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70027-7. PMID: 9813801.
  29. Akkayan B, Gülmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002 Apr;87(4):431-7. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123227. PMID: 12011860.
  30. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent. 1979 Jul;42(1):39-44. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7. PMID: 379307.
  31. Helkimo E, Carlsson GE, Helkimo M. Bite force and state of dentition. Acta Odontol Scand. 1977;35(6):297-303. doi: 10.3109/00016357709064128. PMID: 271452.
  32. Ramfyord SJ, Ash MM. Periodontology and Periodontics. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;1979.
  33. Rosentritt M, Sikora M, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro fracture resistance and marginal adaptation of metallic and tooth-coloured post systems. J Oral Rehabil. 2004 Jul;31(7):675-81. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01286.x. PMID: 15210029.
  34. Raygot CG, Chai J, Jameson DL. Fracture resistance and primary failure mode of endodontically treated teeth restored with a carbon fiber-reinforced resin post system in vitro. Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Mar-Apr;14(2):141-5. PMID: 11843450.
  35. Möllersten L, Lockowandt P, Lindén LA. A comparison of strengths of five core and post-and-core systems. Quintessence Int. 2002 Feb;33(2):140-9. PMID: 11890028.
  36. Upadhyaya V, Bhargava A, Parkash H, Chittaranjan B, Kumar V. A finite element study of teeth restored with post and core: Effect of design, material, and ferrule. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016 May-Jun;13(3):233-8. doi: 10.4103/1735-3327.182182. PMID: 27274343; PMCID: PMC4878207.
  37. Fredriksson M, Astbäck J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Aug;80(2):151-7. doi: 10.1016/s0022-3913(98)70103-9. PMID: 9710815.
  38. Freilich MA. Rationale for the clinical use of fiber -reinforced composites, in: Freilich MA, Meiers JC, Duncan JP, Goldberg AJ. Fiber -Reinforced Composites in Clinical Dentistry. Hanover Park, IL, Quintessence Publishing Co., Ltd., 2000:16,17.
  39. Plasmans PJ, Visseren LG, Vrijhoef MM, Kayser AF. In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. J Endod. 1986 Sep;12(9):382-7. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(86)80071-1. PMID: 3531376.

Download Article
Received August 19, 2024.
Accepted September 30, 2024.
©2024 International Medical Research and Development Corporation.