World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Fracture Resistance and Fracture Pattern of Maxillary Anterior Teeth Restored with Metallic and Nonmetallic Posts

Marissa Baharom, Nor AA Muttlib, Zaihan Ariffin, Adam Husein

Keywords : Endodontics, Fiber-reinforced composite post, Post and core

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1812

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-06-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aimed to compare the fracture resistance and fracture patterns of maxillary central incisors restored with different post systems. Materials and methods: Thirty-two human maxillary central incisors were randomly divided into four groups (n = 8). Posts were placed according to the assigned groups: (I) Stainless Steel ParaPost, (II) Fiber White ParaPost, (III) everStick post, and (IV) No post. The cementation was carried out with self-adhesive resin cement, and nonprecious metal crowns were used for the core build-up and restoration. The thermocycling process was conducted for 500 cycles between 5°C and 50°C with a 2-second dwell time and 30-second dipping time, and the samples were subjected to a compressive load at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute and at an angle of 135° using an Instron testing machine. A Kruskal–Wallis test and Fisher's exact test were used for the data analysis, with p < 0.05. Results: One of the samples was damaged during the testing, and thus, only 31 samples were used. The highest median load was recorded in group III (764.44 N), followed by group II (702.37 N) and group IV (657.44 N), while group I recorded the lowest median load (505.31 N). Favorable fracture patterns were recorded in groups II, III, and IV, while unfavorable fracture patterns were recorded in group I. The statistical analysis showed that there was no significant difference in the fracture resistance or fracture pattern between all the tested groups (p > 0.05). Clinical significance: This study helps in determining the prognosis of endodontically treated teeth restored with post and core. Conclusion: Given the limitations of this study, the metallic and nonmetallic post systems had no significant influence on the fracture resistance and fracture pattern of the maxillary anterior teeth.

  1. Turner CH. The utilization of roots to carry post-retained crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1982;9(3):193–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1982.tb01009.x.
  2. Christensen GJ. Posts: necessary or unnecessary? J Am Dent Assoc 1996;127(10):1522–1524. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1996.0063.
  3. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14(4):355–363.
  4. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990;64(4):419–424. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(90)90037-D.
  5. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90(6):556–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.006.
  6. Le bell-Rönnlöf AM, Lassila LVJ, Kangasniemi I, et al. Load-bearing capacity of human incisor restored with various fiber-reinforced composite posts. Dent Mater 2011;27(6):e107–e115. DOI: 10.1016/
  7. Rud J, Omnell KA. Root fractures due to corrosion. Diagnostic aspects. Scand J Dent Res 1970;78(5):397–403. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0722.1970.tb02088.x.
  8. Silness J, Gustavsen F, Hunsbeth J. Distribution of corrosion products in teeth restored with metal crowns retained by stainless steel posts. Acta Odontol Scand 1979;37(6):317–321. DOI: 10.3109/00016357909004702.
  9. Kakehashi Y, Luthy H, Naef R, et al. A new all-ceramic post and core system: clinical, technical, and in vitro results. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1998;18(6):586–593.
  10. Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003;195(1):43–48. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4810278discussion 37.
  11. 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 Periodont Aesthe Dentis: PPAD 1995;;7(5):33–42. quiz 4.
  12. Karna JC. A fiber composite laminate endodontic post and core. Am J Dent 1996;9(5):230–232.
  13. Nash RW. The use of posts for endodontically treated teeth. Compend Contin Educ Dent 1998;19(10):1054–1056.
  14. King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post developed for the restoration of pulpless teeth. J Oral Rehabilitat 1990;17(6):599–609. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1990.tb01431.x.
  15. Abo El-Ela OA, Atta OA, El-Mowafy O. Fracture resistance of anterior teeth restored with a novel nonmetallic post. J Can Dent Assoc 2008;74(5):441.
  16. Cormier CJ, Burns DR, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont 2001;10(1):26–36. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2001.00026.x.
  17. Naumann M, Metzdorf G, Fokkinga W, et al. Influence of test parameters on in vitro fracture resistance of post-endodontic restorations: a structured review. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36(4):299–312. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01940.x.
  18. Ozcan M, Valandro LF. Fracture strength of endodontically-treated teeth restored with post and cores and composite cores only. Oper Dent 2009;34(4):429–436. DOI: 10.2341/08-110.
  19. Frank RM. Ultrastructure of human dentine 40 years ago--progress and perspectives. Arch Oral Biol 1999;44(12):979–984. DOI: 10.1016/S0003-9969(99)00109-0.
  20. Dallari A, Rovatti L. Six years of in vitro/in vivo experience with composipost. Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl 1996;20:S57–S63.
  21. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):262–269. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70267-2.
  22. Gwinnett JA, Tay FR, Pang KM, et al. Comparison of three methods of critical evaluation of microleakage along restorative interfaces. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74(6):575–585. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80308-7.
  23. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(4):360–367. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.75.
  24. Mendoza DB, Eakle WS, Kahl EA, et al. Root reinforcement with a resin-bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(1):10–14. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70081-7.
  25. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Vallittu PK, et al. A structured analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure modes of fiber, metal, and ceramic post- and-core systems. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17(4):476–482.
  26. Dvornikova TS, Visser HK, everStick POST Clinical Guide. 2011.
  27. González-Lluch C, Rodríguez-Cervantes PJ, Sancho-Bru JL, et al. Influence of material and diameter of pre-fabricated posts on maxillary central incisors restored with crown. J Oral Rehabil 2009;36(10):737–747. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2009.01989.x.
  28. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):431–437. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123227.
  29. Barjau-Escribano A, Sancho-Bru JL, Forner-Navarro L, et al. Influence of prefabricated post material on restored teeth: fracture strength and stress distribution. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):47–54. DOI: 10.2341/04-169.
  30. Fráter M, Lassila L, Braunitzer G, et al. Fracture resistance and marginal gap formation of post-core restorations: influence of different fiber-reinforced composites. Clin Oral Investig 2020;24(1):265–276. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-019-02902-3.
  31. Hou Q-Q, Gao Y-M, Sun L. Influence of fiber posts on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars with different dental defects. Int J Oral Sci 2013;5(3):167–171. DOI: 10.1038/ijos.2013.52.
  32. Cagidiaco MC, Garcia-Godoy F, Vichi A, et al. Placement of fiber prefabricated or custom made posts affects the 3-year survival of endodontically treated premolars. Am J Dent 2008;21(3):179–184.
  33. Isidor F, Odman P, Brondum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Prosthodont 1996;9(2):131–136.
  34. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblock in root canal: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod 2007;33(4):391–398. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.009.
  35. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and composite cores after cyclic loading: a confocal microscopic study. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85(3):284–291. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2001.113706.
  36. Morgano SM, Brackett SE. Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics: current knowledge and future needs. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(6):643–657. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(99)70005-3.
  37. Boschian Pest L, Cavalli G, Bertani P, et al. Adhesive post-endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. Dent Mater 2002;18(8):596–602. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00003-9.
  38. Gu XH, Kern M. Fracture resistance of crowned incisors with different post systems and luting agents. J Oral Rehabil 2006;33(12):918–923. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2006.01672.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.