A Contemporary Review on Traditional and Digital Post Systems

Abstract

This study examines post systems obtained through traditional and digital methods, analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of different materials. Metal post systems are divided into prefabricated and cast types, with prefabricated posts being more commonly preferred. Fiber post systems, with an elastic modulus similar to dentin, help reduce stress on the root surface. Ceramic post systems are aesthetic and biocompatible but may increase the risk of root fractures. Recently developed PEEK posts and CAD/CAM systems offer significant advantages in terms of precision and biomechanical compatibility. This review aims to shed light on current advancements in post systems and potential future applications in clinical practice.

Keywords

• Post Systems
• Fiber Post
• Ceramic Post
• CAD/CAM Technology
• PEEK Post

Geleneksel ve Dijital Post Sistemleri Üzerine Güncel Bir Derleme

Öz

Bu çalışma, geleneksel ve dijital yolla elde edilen post sistemlerini ele almakta ve farklı materyallerin avantaj ve dezavantajlarını incelemektedir. Metal post sistemleri, prefabrik ve döküm olmak üzere ikiye ayrılmakta olup prefabrik postlar daha yaygın olarak tercih edilmektedir. Fiber post sistemleri, dentine benzer elastik modüle sahip olmaları nedeniyle kök yüzeyindeki stresin azalmasını sağlamaktadır. Seramik post sistemleri estetik ve biyouyumlu olsalar da kök yüzeyinde kırık riskini artırabilmektedir. Son dönemde geliştirilen PEEK postlar ve CAD/CAM sistemleri, hassasiyet ve biyomekanik uyum açısından önemli avantajlar sunmaktadır. Bu derleme, post sistemlerinin klinik kullanımındaki güncel gelişmelere ve gelecekteki potansiyel uygulamalara ışık tutmayı amaçlamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Post Sistemleri
• Fiber Post
• Seramik Post
• CAD/CAM Teknolojisi
• PEEK Post

References

1. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004; 30: 289-301.
2. Gómez-Polo M, Llidó B, Rivero A, et al. A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores. J Dent. 2010; 38: 916-20.
3. Drummond JL. In vitro evaluation of endodontic posts. Am J Dent. 2000; 13: S5-8.
4. Tian Y, Chen C, Xu X, et al. A review of 3D printing in dentistry: technologies, affecting factors, and applications. Scanning. 2021; 2021: 9950131.
5. Benli M, Eker Gümüş B, Kahraman Y, et al. Surface characterization and bonding properties of milled polyetheretherketone dental posts. Odontol. 2020; 108: 596-606.
6. Kabacıoğlu E, Küçük C, Gözneli R. Prefabrike metal post-kor restorasyonların klinik başarısının değerlendirilmesi: 5 yıllık retrospektif çalışma. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2017; 32: 80-4.
7. Kahramanoğlu E, Özyer EK, Yıldız C, et al. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of fiber and metal post-core systems: 5 years follow up. Eur J Res Dent. 2018; 2: 40-6.
8. Jurema ALB, Filgueiras AT, Santos KA, et al. Effect of intraradicular fiber post on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated and restored anterior teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2022; 128: 13-24.

9. Bavbek AB, Korkmaz T, Yılmaz C. Mechanical aspect of fiber reinforced composite posts. Gazi Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2007; 24: 187-92.
10. Erdemir U, Sancaklı H, Özel S, et al. Farklı adeziv simanlar ile simante edilen farklı fiber postların mikrosızıntılarının kantitatif olarak değerlendirilmesi. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2014; 24: 50-7.
11. Uzun G, Keyf F. An alternative to conventional post-core systems: polyethylene fiber post. Hacettepe Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2007; 2: 43-8.
12. Eskitaşcıoğlu G, Belli S. Use of a bondable reinforcement fiber for post-and-core buildup in an endodontically treated tooth: a case report. Quintessence Int. 2002; 33: 473-6.
13. Lassila LVJ, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, et al. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater. 2004; 20: 29-36.
14. Eskitaşcıoğlu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post-core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite element stress analysis). J Endod. 2002; 28: 629-33.
15. Rosato DV, Rosato DV. Reinforced plastics handbook. 3rd ed. Oxford, Elsevier, 2004.
16. Cheung GSP, Chan TK. Long-term survival of primary root canal treatment carried out in a dental teaching hospital. Int Endod J. 2003; 36: 117-25.
17. Başaran EG. Geçmişten günümüze post sistemleri. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2013; 23: 90-6.
18. Bilgin MS, Öztürk AN. Estetik post sistemleri. Selçuk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2008; 17: 243-5.
19. Kıvanç BH. Endodontik tedavili dişlerde post uygulamaları. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2006; 1: S1-5.
20. Gracis S, Thompson VP, Ferencz JL, et al. A new classification system for all-ceramic and ceramic-like restorative materials. Int J Prosthodont. 2015; 28: 227-35.
21. Çökük DN. Endodontik tedavili dişlerde estetik post uygulamaları. Atatürk Üniv Diş Hek Fak Derg. 2009; 19: 124-30.
22. Kasem AT, Shams M, Tribst JPM. The use of polyetheretherketone (PEEK) as an alternative post and core material: five-year follow-up report. Dent J (Basel). 2022; 10: 237.
23. Schwitalla AD, Abou-Emara M, Zimmermann T, et al. The applicability of PEEK-based abutment screws. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater. 2016; 63: 244-51.
24. Nahar R, Mishra SK, Chowdhary R. Evaluation of stress distribution in an endodontically treated tooth restored with four different post systems and two different crowns: a finite element analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2020; 10: 719-26.
25. Huang L, Nemoto R, Okada D, et al. Investigation of stress distribution within an endodontically treated tooth restored with different restorations. J Dent Sci. 2022; 17: 1115-24.
26. Ibrahim RO, Al Zahawi AR, Sabri LA. Mechanical and thermal stress evaluation of PEEK prefabricated post with different head design in endodontically treated tooth: 3D finite element analysis. Dent Mater J. 2021; 40: 508-18.
27. Yu H, Feng Z, Wang L, et al. Finite element study of PEEK materials applied in post-retained restorations. Polymers (Basel). 2022; 14: 3422.
28. Baba NZ. Materials and processes for CAD/CAM complete denture fabrication. Curr Oral Health Rep. 2016; 3: 203-8.
29. Batson ER, Cooper LF, Duqum I, et al. Clinical outcomes of three different crown systems with CAD/CAM technology. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112: 770-7.
30. Uzun G. An overview of dental CAD/CAM systems. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip. 2008; 22: 530-5.
31. Chen Z, Li Y, Deng X, et al. A novel computer-aided method to fabricate a custom one-piece glass fiber dowel-and-core based on digitized impression and crown preparation data. J Prosthodont. 2014; 23: 276-83.
32. Alhajj MN, Qi CH, Sayed ME, et al. Fracture resistance of titanium and fiber dental posts: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthodont. 2022; 31: 374-84.
33. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, et al. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater. 2006; 22: 477-85.
34. Borzangy SS, Saker SM, Al-Zordk WA. Effect of restoration technique on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated anterior teeth with flared root canals. J Biomed Res. 2019; 33: 131-8.
35. Farah RI, Aloraini AS, Al-Haj Ali SN. Fabrication of custom post-and-core using a directly fabricated silicone pattern and digital workflow. J Prosthodont. 2020; 29: 631-5.
36. Piangsuk T, Dawson DV, El-Kerdani T, et al. The accuracy of post and core fabricated with digital technology. J Prosthodont. 2023; 32: 221-6.
37. Alkhatri R, Saleh ARM, Kheder W. Evaluating fracture resistance and failure modes of root filled teeth restored with CAD/CAM-fabricated post and core. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2019; 11: 349-55.
38. Hendi AR, Moharrami M, Siadat H, et al. The effect of conventional, half-digital, and full-digital fabrication techniques on the retention and apical gap of post and core restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2019; 121: 364.
39. Gonzaga CC, Correr GM. CAD/CAM post-and-core using different esthetic materials: fracture resistance and bond strengths. Am J Dent. 2017; 30: 299-304.
40. Sipahi C, Toksoy F, Ayyıldız S, et al. Effect of physical and physicochemical surface treatment methods on the tensile strength of CAD/CAM-fabricated zirconia posts and cores luted to root canals. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2011; 31: 399-405.
41. Streacker AB, Geissberger M. The milled ceramic post and core: a functional and esthetic alternative. J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97: 26-31.
42. Eid RY, Koken S, Baba NZ, et al. Effect of fabrication technique and thermal cycling on the bond strength of CAD/CAM milled custom fit anatomical post and cores: an in vitro study. J Prosthodont. 2019; 28: 898-905.
43. Eid R, Juloski J, Ounsi H, et al. Fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated teeth restored with computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing post and cores: a pilot study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019; 20: 56-63.
44. Vinothkumar T, Kandaswamy D, Chanana P. CAD/CAM fabricated single-unit all-ceramic post-core-crown restoration. J Conserv Dent. 2011; 14: 86-90.
45. Kanduti D, Korat L, Kosec T, et al. Comparison between accuracy of posts fabricated using a digital CAD/CAM technique and a conventional direct technique. Int J Prosthodont. 2021; 34: 212-20.
46. Perucelli F, Goulart da Costa R, Machado de Souza E, et al. Effect of half-digital workflows on the adaptation of custom CAD-CAM composite post-and-cores. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 126: 790-6.
47. Pang J, Feng C, Zhu X, et al. Fracture behaviors of maxillary central incisors with flared root canals restored with CAD/CAM integrated glass fiber post-and-core. Dent Mater J. 2019; 38: 114-9.
48. Daci A, Mijoska A, Kovacevska G. CAD/CAM post-and-core: Different materials for esthetic and fracture strength. Knowledge Int J. 2020; 43: 641–4.
49. Terry DA, Swift EJ. Post-and-cores: past to present. Dent Today. 2010; 29: 132–8.