PREFABRİKE METAL POST-KOR RESTORASYONLARIN KLİNİK BAŞARISININ DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ: 5 YILLIK RETROSPEKTIF ÇALIŞMA

Year 2022, Volume: 32 Issue: 1, 80 - 84, 15.02.2022

Elif Kabacıoğlu Ceren Küçük Rifat Gözneli

https://doi.org/10.17567/ataunidfd.998891

Abstract

Amaç: Bu retrospektif çalışmanın amacı, prefabrike metal post-kor restorasyonların 5 yıllık kullanım süresi içindeki başarı oranı ve başarısızlık tiplerini değerlendirmektir.
Yöntemler: Toplam 149 prefabrike metal post ile 5 yıl önce tedavi edilen 85 hastanın kayıtları incelendi ve geri çağrıldı. Yapılan klinik ve radyografik değerlendirmede: post retansiyon kaybı, kron retansiyonunun kaybı, kırık sonrası, kök kırığı, sekonder çürükler, apikal lezyonlar, protez restorasyon tipi (kron / köprü / hareketli bölümlü protez), lokasyonu (üst / alt çene, kesici / köpek / küçük azı / büyük azı dişi) parametreler incelendi. Alınan veriler ile başarı ve başarısızlık oranları hesaplandı.
Bulgular: Post-core restorasyonların başarı oranı %91,94 bulundu. En sık görülen başarısızlık çeşidinin protetik restorasyonda restorasyon kaybı (%16.10) ve ardından sekonder çürüklerin (%9,39) olduğu tespit edildi. Postta tutuculuk kaybı başarısızlık oranı %3.35 bulundu. Hiçbir kök kırığı kaydedilmedi. Protetik restorasyon tipine göre başarısızlık oranları hareketli bölümlü protezlerde %23.08, kronda %8.64 ve köprü restorasyonlarında %3.64 bulundu.
Sonuç: Sonuçlar post-kor restorasyonların başarı oranının tatmin edici sınırlarda olduğunu gösterdi. Ancak hareketli bölümlü protez vakalarında daha yüksek post tutuculuk kaybı oranı görüldüğünden, hareketli proteze destek dişin post-kor restorasyonlar ile tedavi edilmesine karar verilirken dikkat edilmelidir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Başarı oranı, Post-kor, Tutuculuk kaybı

Abstract
Objective: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the success rate and failure types of prefabricated metal post-core restorations in 5 years period of usage.
Methods: The records of 85 patients, who had been treated with 149 prefabricated metal posts were analysed and recalled after 5 years of treatment for clinical and radiological examination. The parameters that were used in the evaluation were: loss of post retention, loss of crown retention, post fracture, root fracture, secondary caries, apical lesions, type of prosthetic restoration (crown / bridgework / removable partial denture), location ( upper / lower jaw, incisor / canine / premolar / molar). The success and failure rates were calculated.
Results: The success rate of post-core restorations was 91,94%. Loss of prosthetic restoration retention was the most frequent failure mode (16.10%), followed by secondary caries (9,39%). The failure rate of post retention loss was 3.35%. No root fractures were recorded. The failure rates according to the type of prosthetic restoration were 23.08% in removable partial dentures, 8.64% in crown and 3.64% in bridgework restorations.
Conclusion: The results showed that the success rate of post-core restorations were in satisfactory limits. However, since the higher loss of post retention rate was seen in removable partial denture cases, it should be paid attention in deciding to treat the supporting tooth of removable denture with a post-core restoration.
Keywords: Success rate, Post-core, Retention loss

Keywords

Başarı oranı, Post-kor, Tutuculuk kaybı

References

• 1. Shillinburg HT, Hobo S, Whittsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE, editors. Preparations for extensively damaged teeth. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. Inc; 1997:181-209.
• 2. Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am. 2002;46: 367-384.
• 3. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post systems: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81(4):380-385.
• 4. Peroz I, Blankenstein F, Lange KP, Naumann M. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores-A review. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(9):737-746.
• 5. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Collard EW, Pollack NH. Analysis of stress distribution by endodontic posts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1972;33(6):952-960.
• 6. Felton DA, Webb EL, Kanoy BE, Dugoni J. Threaded endodontic dowels: effect of post design on incidence of root fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65(2):179-187.
• 7. Johnson JK, Sakamura JS. Dowel form and tensile force. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;40(6):645-649.
• 8. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. J Endod. 2004;30(5):289-301.
• 9. Dikbaş İ, Köksal T. Post-Kor Uygulamalarında Başarısızlıklar. J Dent Fac Atatürk Uni. 2006;2:41-51.
• 10. The Glossary of Prosthodontic Terms: Ninth Edition. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:e1-e105.
• 11. Gomez-Polo M, Llido B,Rivero A, del Rio J, Celemin A. A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal fabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores. J Dent. 2010;38(11):916-920.
• 12. Jung RE, Kalkstein O, Sailer I, Roos M, Hammerle CH. A comparison of composite post buildups and cast gold post-and-core buildups fort he restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10 years. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(1):63-69.
• 13. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent. 2000;13:15B-18B.
• 14. Soares CJ, Valdivia ADCM, da Silva GR, Santana FR, Menezes MS. Longitudinal clinical evaluation of post systems: A literatüre review. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(2):135-140.
• 15. Morgano SM, Rodrigues AHC, Sabrosa CE. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48(2):397-416.
• 16. Torbjorner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;73(5):439-444.
• 17. Dilber E, Ok E, Baytaroğlu E, Kalkan A. Post sistemlerinde popüler yaklaşımlar ve fiber postların klinik çalışmaları. EÜ Diş Hek Fak Derg.2016;37:10-16.
• 18. Hedlung SO, Johansson NG, Sjögren G. A retrospective study of pre-fabricated carbon fibre root canal posts. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(10):1036-1040.
• 19. Torbjörner A, Fransson B. A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2004;17(3):369-376.
• 20. Balkenhol M, Wöstmann B, Rein C, Ferger P. Survival times of cast post and cores: A 10-year retrospective study. J Dent. 2007;35(1):50-58.
• 21. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1985;1(3):108-111.
• 22. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub J. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent. 2001;29(6):427-433.
• 23. Martino N, Truong C, Clark AE, et al. Retrospective analysis of survival rates of post-and-cores in a dental school setting. J Prosthet Dent. 2020;123(3):434-441.
• 24. Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J. 2003;195(1):43-48.
• 25. Schmitter M, Rammelsberg P, Gabbert O, Ohlmann B. Influence of clinical baseline findings on the survival of 2 post systems: a randomized clinical trial. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(2):173-178.
• 26. Hoag EP, Dwyer TG. A comparative evaluation of three post and core techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1982;47(2):177-181.
• 27. Bateli M, Kern M, Wolkewitz M, Strub JR, Att W. A retrospective evaluation of teeth restored with zirconia ceramic posts: 10-year results. Clin Oral Invest. 2014;18(4):1181-1187.
• 28. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008;39(2):117-129.
• 29. Parisi C, Valandro LF, Ciocca L, Gatto MRA, Baldissara P. Clinical outcomes and success rates of quartz fiber post restorations: A retrospective study. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(3):367-372.
• 30. Eckerbom M, Magnusson T, Martinsson T. Prevalence of apical periodontitis, crowned teeth and teeth with posts in a Swedish population. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1991;7(5):214-220.
• 31. Fan B, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Coronal leakage along apical root fill- ings after immediate and delayed post space preparation. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1999;15(3):124-126.
• 32. Fokkinga Wietske A, Kreulen Cees M, Bronkhorst Ewald M, Creugers Nico HJ. Up to 17-year controlled clinical study on post- and-cores and covering crowns. J Dent. 2007;35(10):778-786.
• 33. Hatzikyriakos AH, Reisis GI, Tsingos N. A 3-year postoperative clinical evaluation of posts and cores beneath existing crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67(4):454-458.
• 34. Raedel M, Fiedler C, Jacoby S, Boening KW. Survival of teeth trated with cast post and cores: A retrospective analysis over an observation period of up to 19.5 years. J Prosthet Dent. 2015;114(1):40-45.