In Vitro Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Roots Filled With a Bonded Filling Material or Different Types of Fiber Posts

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of roots filled with a bonded material or fiber posts. 40 freshly extracted human maxillary canine teeth were selected and divided into fourgroups. The 10 roots in Group 1 were filled withResilon and Epiphany sealer . The 10 roots inGroup 2 were filled with AH Plus and gutta-perchaand then quartz-fiber posts were placed. The 10roots in Group 3 were filled with AH Plus andgutta-percha and then carbon-fiber posts werecemented. The 10 roots in Group 4 were filled withAH Plus and gutta-percha. Tests for fracturestrength were performed using a Universal Testmachine. The difference between Group 1 and 4 P

Keywords

• Fracture resistance, epiphany,fiber posts

Bağlama özelliği olan bir kanal dolgu materyali ile veya farklı fiber post tipleri ile restore edilen endodontik tedavili köklerin kırılma dirençlerinin in vitro incelenmesi

Abstract

Bu çalışmanın amacı fiber postlar ve kökkanal duvarlarına bağlanma özelliği olan bir kökkanal dolgu materyali ile doldurulmuş köklerin k›r›lma direncini karş›laşt›rmakt›r. Bu çal›şma için yeni çekilmiş 40 adet maksiller kanin diş seçildi ve 4 gruba ayr›ld›. Grup 1’de 10 adet kanal Resilon ve Epiphany pat› ile dolduruldu. Grup 2’de 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu ve quartz-fiber postlar simante edildi. Grup 3’te 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu ve karbon fiber postlar simante edildi. Grup 4’te 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu. K›r›lma direnci testleri bir Universal test cihaz› ile yap›ld›. Grup 1 ve 4 P

Keywords

• K›r›lma direnci, Epiphany, fiber postlar

References

1. Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considera- tions in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 565-7.
2. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 458-67.
3. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1540-4.
4. Wagnild G, Mueller K. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathways of the Pulp, 9th Ed. St Louis, USA: CV Mosby, 2006; 786-821.
5. Jagadish S, Yogesh B. Fracture resistance of teeth with class II silver amalgams, posterior com- posites and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990; 15: 42-7.
6. Fissore B, Nicholls JI, Youdelis RA. Load fatigue of teeth restored by a dentine bonding agent and a posterior composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 80- 5.
7. Johnson ME, Stewart GP, Nielsen CJ, Hatton JF. Evaluation of root reinforcement of endodonti- cally treated teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 90: 360-4
8. Teixeira FB, Teixeira ECN, Thompson JY, Leinfelder KF, Trope M. Dentinal bonding reaches the root canal system. J Esth Rest Dent 2004; 16: 348-54.

9. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003; 195: 43-8.
10. Robbins JW. Guidelines for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120: 558-66.
11. Turner CH. The utilization to carry post- retained crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1982; 9: 193-202.
12. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Endodontically treated teeth as abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 631-6.
13. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. 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 Prosthet Dent 2001; 29: 427-33.
14. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and with- out endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 39-44.
15. Kane JJ, Burgess JO. Modification of the resistance form of amalgam coronal radicular restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 470-4.
16. Fernandez AS, Shetty S, Couthinho I. Factors determining post selection: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 6: 556-62.
17. Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodonti- cally treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 2002; 46: 367-84.
18. King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evalu- ation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post deve- loped for the restoration of pulpless teeth. J Oral Rehabil 1990; 17: 599-609.
19. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999; 27: 275-8.
20. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a lite- rature review. J Endod 2004; 30: 289-301.
21. Iglesia AM, Cabornero AA. Fiber rein- forced post and core adapted to a previous metal ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 2004; 91: 215-21.
22. Schwartz RS, Murchison DF, Walker WA. Effects of eugenol and noneugenol endodontic sealer cements on post retention. J Endod 1998; 24: 564-7.
23. Berekally T. Contemporary perspectives on postcore systems. Aust Endod J 2003; 29: 120-7.
24. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LVJ, Vallittu PK, Creugers NHJ. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete cowns with and without posts on maxillary premo- lars. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 230-7.
25. Lindemuth JS, Hagge MS, Broome JS. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2000; 25: 177-81.
26. Dias de Souza GM, Pereira GDS, Dias CDS, Paulillo LAMS. Fracture resistance of premo- lars with bonded class II amalgams. Oper Dent 2002; 27: 349-53.
27. Cobankara FK, Ungör M, Belli S. The effect of two different root canal sealers and smear layer on resistance to root fracture. J Endod 2002; 28: 606-9.
28. Teixeira FB, Teixeira ECN, Thompson JY, Trope M. Fracture resistance of roots endodontically treated with with a new resin filling material. JADA 2004; 135: 646-52.
29. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 477-85.
30. 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: 15-8.
31. Cormier CJ, Burns R, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic and conventional post sys- tems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont 2001; 10: 26-36.
32. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78: 5-9.
33. Shipper G, Orstavik D, Teixeira FB, Trope M. An evaluation of microbial leakage in roots filled with a thermoplastic synthetic polymer-based root canal filling material. J Endod 2004; 30: 342-7.
34. Ribeiro FC, Souza-Gabriel AE, Marchesan MA, Alfredo E, Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD. Influence of different endodontic filling materials on root fracture susceptibility. J Dent. 2008; 36: 69-73.
35. Ulusoy OI, Genç O, Arslan S, Alaçam T, Görgül G. Fracture resistance of roots obturated with three different materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007; 104: 705-8.
36. Hunter AJ, Feiglin B, Williams JF. Effects of post placement on endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1989; 62: 166-72.
37. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. 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: 427-33.
38. Swanson K, Madison S. An evaluation of coronal microleakage in endodontically treated teeth. J Endodon 1987; 16: 566-9.