alexa In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration.
Dentistry

Dentistry

Dentistry

Author(s): Cormier CJ, Burns DR, Moon P

Abstract Share this page

Abstract PURPOSE: This in vitro study evaluated 6 post systems over 4 simulated clinical stages of tooth restoration to (1) determine quantitatively the fracture resistance strength at each stage when a static loading force is applied to cause failure; (2) determine the failure mode for each post system at each simulated clinical stage; and (3) determine the feasibility of removing failed post systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten post systems made with various materials and designs were tested at the following 4 stages of simulated clinical treatment: stage #1: posts only, loaded using a 3-point loading model to failure, to determine transverse strengths and failure modes for each post system; stage #2: posts alone, bonded into teeth; stage #3: posts bonded into teeth with core build up; stage #4: post and core build up and full veneer restoration. For stages #2 through #4, the coronal portion of 60 mandibular premolars was amputated at the cemento-enamel junction, the canals were treated endodontically, and the specimens were mounted in acrylic blocks. A testing force was applied to the posts at 90 degrees to the long axis of the tooth, 4 mm from the cemento-enamel junction. The O'Brien test for constant variance was performed over the treatment groups. For nonconstant variance, the Welsh analysis of variance was used to test for equalities of treatment means. The Tukey Kramer procedure determined which treatment procedures differed. RESULTS: The failure thresholds for each post system were significantly different at each stage of testing, but the order of test results by post type remained generally consistent from one stage to the next. ParaPosts (Coltene, Whaledent Int, New York, NY) and core build up resulted in significantly higher failure thresholds through all 4 stages of testing. This post system also consistently displayed a high number of nonfavorable tooth fractures. FibreKor post and cores (Jeneric Pentron Inc, Wallingford, CT) resulted in significantly lower failure threshold values in stages #2 through #4. This post system displayed no tooth fractures in stages #2 and #3 and a similar number of nonfavorable tooth fractures in stage #4 when compared with the other systems. C-Post (Bisco Dental Products, Schaumburg, IL), CosmoPost (Ivoclar Vivadent North America Inc, Amherst, NY), and AesthetiPost (Bisco Dental Products) grouped in descending order through stages #2 to #4. These systems displayed intermediate fracture resistance strengths, as well as a moderate number of nonfavorable tooth fractures. CosmoPost exhibited a significant number of brittle post fractures with fragments left in the root canal at all stages. The fracture resistance of the cast metal post varied from stage to stage. No teeth fractured at stage #2. At stage #3, 9 of 10 teeth fractured nonfavorably, and all teeth fractured nonfavorably in stage #4. CONCLUSIONS: The fiber posts evaluated provided an advantage over a conventional post that showed a higher number of irretrievable post and unrestorable root fractures. At the stage of final restoration insertion, there was no difference in force to failure for all but the FibreKor material, which continued to be weaker than all other tested materials. The fiber posts were readily retrievable after failure, whereas the remaining post systems tested were nonretrievable. J Prosthodont 2001;10:26-36. Copyright 2001 by The American College of Prosthodontists.
This article was published in J Prosthodont and referenced in Dentistry

Relevant Expert PPTs

Relevant Speaker PPTs

Recommended Conferences

  • 39th South American Dental Congress
    Dec 4-6,2017 Sao Paulo,Brazil

Relevant Topics

Peer Reviewed Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
International Conferences 2017-18
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings

Contact Us

Agri & Aquaculture Journals

Dr. Krish

agriaquaculture@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

biochemjournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemistryjournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9040

Clinical Journals

Datta A

clinicaljournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineeringjournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Food & Nutrition Journals

Katie Wilson

nutritionjournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science

Andrea Jason

generalscience@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics & Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

geneticsmolbio@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immunomicrobiol@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Nursing & Health Care Journals

Stephanie Skinner

nursinghealthcare@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medicaljournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuropsychology@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

Ann Jose

pharmajournals@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsonline.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

 
© 2008- 2017 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version
adwords