The Effect of Surface Properties of Different Types of Post Materials on Fracture Type

Abstract

Introduction and Aim Considering the advantages and disadvantages of different clinical situations, the surface characteristics of the post materials significantly affect the connection of the post material with dentin. In this study, the surface properties of PEEK posts, which are not yet widely used as post materials, were examined in terms of their effects on dentin bonding. Method 66 extracted upper central incisor-type human teeth that had undergone canal treatment with single and straight root canals were used. Posts were produced ) (n=11) from metal, fiber, and PEEK materials to form six groups (CP-0, CP-1, FP-0, FP-1, PP-0, and PP-1). The surface roughness of each post was examined by using a tactile profilometer. Zirconium full crowns, compatible with the central maxillary incisor anatomy, were produced for 66 samples with completed post-core production and polymerized using dual-cure resin cement (Monobond plus Vivadent). Subsequently, the samples were subjected to fracture strength testing at a 135-degree angle to the long axis of the tooth from the palatal side of the zirconium crown at a speed of 0.02 cm/min using a universal testing machine. After the test, the samples were classified into three groups based on the type of fracture: adhesive, cohesive, and mixed. One-way ANOVA and Pearson’s chi-squared tests were used for statistical analysis. Results The surface roughness value of the PEEK post group (1.42 ± 0.21) was significantly lower than that of the metal and fiber post groups. Although no significant difference was found in terms of the fracture type, the adhesive failure rate was higher in the PEEK post group (P<.05). Conclusion The biologically inert nature of the PEEK material adversely affects surface treatments. Consequently, in post systems where PEEK is used, the rate of adhesive-type fractures originating from the resin-post interface is higher than in other materials.

Keywords

• Adhesion
• peek post
• surface roughness

References

1. 1. Fráter M, Sáry T, Néma V, Braunitzer G, Vallittu P, Lassila L, Garoushi S. Fatigue failure load of immature anterior teeth: influence of different fiber post-core systems. Odontology. 2021; 109:222-30.
2. 2. Topçuoğlu HS, Demirbuga S, Tuncay Ö, Pala K, Arslan H, Karataş E. The effects of Mtwo, R-Endo, and D-RaCe retreatment instruments on the incidence of dentinal defects during the removal of root canal filling material. J Endod. 2014; 40(2):266-70.
3. 3. Alqarawi FK, Alkahtany MF, Almadi KH, Ben Gassem AA, Alshahrani FA, AlRefeai MH, Farooq I, Vohra F, Abduljabbar T. Influence of different conditioning treatments on the bond integrity of root dentin to rGO infiltrated dentin adhesive. SEM, EDX, FTIR and microRaman study. Polymers. 2021; 13(10):1555.
4. 4. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C. Efficacy of a Self-Curing Adhesive--Resin Cement System on Luting Glass-Fiber Posts into Root Canals: An SEM Investigation. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14(6):543-49.
5. 5. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth: Post, core and the final restoration. JADA. 2005; 136(5):611-9.
6. 6. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63(5):529-36.
7. 7. Akkayan B. An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule length on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced and zirconia dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92(2):155-62.
8. 8. Fráter M, Sáry T, Braunitzer G, Szabó PB, Lassila L, Vallittu PK, Garoushi S. Fatigue failure of anterior teeth without ferrule restored with individualized fiber-reinforced post-core foundations. JMBBM. 2021; 118:104440.

9. 9. Stankiewicz N, Wilson P. The ferrule effect: a literature review. Int Endod J. 2002:35(7):575-81.
10. 10. Tjan AH, Whang SB. Resistance to root fracture of dowel channels with various thicknesses of buccal dentin walls. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53(4):496-500.
11. 11. 1Fontana P, Bohrer T, Wandscher V, Valandro L, Limberger I, Kaizer O. Effect of ferrule thickness on fracture resistance of teeth restored with a glass fiber post or cast post. Oper Dent. 2019; 44(6):E299-E308.
12. 12. Yang A, Lamichhane A, Xu C. Remaining coronal dentin and risk of fiber-reinforced composite post-core restoration failure: a meta-analysis. International Journal of Prosthodontics. 2015; 28(3):258-64.
13. 13. Lassila LV, Tezvergil A, Lahdenperä M, Alander P, Shinya A, Shinya A, Vallittu PK. Evaluation of some properties of two fiber-reinforced composite materials. Acta Odontol Scand. 2005; 63(4):196-204.
14. 14. Grandini S, Goracci C, Monticelli F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Fatigue resistance and structural characteristics of fiber posts: three-point bending test and SEM evaluation. Dent Mater J. 2005; 21(2):75-82.
15. 15. Cathro P, Chandler N, Hood J. Impact resistance of crowned endodontically treated central incisors with internal composite cores. Dent Traumatol. 1996; 12(3):124-28.
16. 16. Fredriksson M, Astbäck J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80(2):151-57.
17. 17. Miura H, Yoshii S, Fujimoto M, Washio A, Morotomi T, Ikeda H, Kitamura C. Effects of both fiber post/core resin construction system and root canal sealer on the material interface in deep areas of root canal. Materials. 2021; 14(4):982.
18. 18. Soliman M, Alshamrani L, Yahya B, Alajlan G, Aldegheishem A, Eldwakhly E. Monolithic Endocrown Vs. Hybrid Intraradicular Post/Core/Crown Restorations for Endodontically Treated Teeth; Cross-sectional Study. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021; 28(11):6523-31.
19. 19. Henriques B, Fabris D, Mesquita-Guimarães J, Sousa AC, Hammes N, Souza JC, Silva FS, Fredel MC. Influence of laser structuring of PEEK, PEEK-GF30 and PEEK-CF30 surfaces on the shear bond strength to a resin cement. JMBBM. 2018; 84:225-34.
20. 20. Li P, Hasselbeck D, Unkovskiy A, Sharghi F, Spintzyk S. Retentive Characteristics of a Polyetheretherketone Post-Core Restoration with Polyvinylsiloxane Attachments. Polymers. 2020; 12(9):2005.
21. 21. Ozarslan M, Buyukkaplan US, Ozarslan MM. Comparison of the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth restored with polyether ether ketone, zirconia and glass‐fiber post‐core systems. Int J Clin Pract. 2021; 75(9):e14440.
22. 22. Stawarczyk B, Jordan P, Schmidlin PR, Roos M, Eichberger M, Gernet W, Keul C. PEEK surface treatment effects on tensile bond strength to veneering resins. J Prosthet Dent. 2014; 112(5):1278-88.
23. 23. Libman WJ, Nicholls JI. Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns. Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8(2): 155-61.
24. 24. Juloski J, Radovic I, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Ferrule effect: a literature review. J Endod. 2012; 38(1):11-19.
25. 25. Tan PL, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Stanford CM, Tan SC, Johnson WT, Dawson D. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated central incisors with varying ferrule heights and configurations. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(4):331-36.
26. 26. Bacchi A, Caldas RA, Schmidt D, Detoni M, Souza MA, Cecchin D, Farina AP. Fracture strength and stress distribution in premolars restored with cast post-and-cores or glass-fiber posts considering the influence of ferule. BioMed Res Int. 2019; 2196519
27. 27. Naumann M, Schmitter M, Frankenberger R, Krastl G. “Ferrule comes first. Post is second!” Fake news and alternative facts? A systematic review. J Endod. 2018; 44(2):212-19.
28. 28. Pereira JR, De Ornelas F, Conti PCR, Do Valle AL. Effect of a crown ferrule on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95(1):50-54.
29. 29. Zhi-Yue L, Yu-Xing Z. Effects of post-core design and ferrule on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89(4):368-73.
30. 30. Qing H, Zhu Z, Chao Y, Zhang W. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance of anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber and zircon posts. The J Prosthet Dent. 2007; 97(2):93-98.
31. 31. Pourkhalili H, Maleki D. Fracture resistance of polyetheretherketone, Ni-Cr, and fiberglass postcore systems: An in vitro study. Dent Res J. 2022; 19:20.
32. 32. Kul E, Yanıkoğlu N, Yeter KY, Bayındır F, Sakarya RE. A comparison of the fracture resistance of premolars without a ferrule with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2020; 123(3):523.e1-e5.
33. 33. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Ravnholt G, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Resistance to cyclic loading of teeth restored with posts. Clin Oral Invest. 2005; 9:84-90.
34. 34. Rosentritt M, Preis V, Behr M, Sereno N, Kolbeck C. Shear bond strength between veneering composite and PEEK after different surface modifications. Clin Oral Investigat. 2015; 19:739-44.
35. 35. Schmidlin PR, Stawarczyk B, Wieland M, Attin T, Hämmerle CH, Fischer J. Effect of different surface pre-treatments and luting materials on shear bond strength to PEEK. Dent Mat J. 2010:; 26(6):553-59.
36. 36. Bezzon OL, Pedrazzi H, Zaniquelli O, da Silva TBC. Effect of casting technique on surface roughness and consequent mass loss after polishing of NiCr and CoCr base metal alloys: a comparative study with titanium. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 2(3):274-47.
37. 37. Chaijareenont P, Prakhamsai S, Silthampitag P, Takahashi H, Arksornnukit M. Effects of different sulfuric acid etching concentrations on PEEK surface bonding to resin composite. Dent Mat J. 2018; 37(3):385-92.
38. 38. Lee K-S, Shin M-S, Lee J-Y, Ryu J-J, Shin S-W. Shear bond strength of composite resin to high performance polymer PEKK according to surface treatments and bonding materials. J Adv Prosthodont. 2017; 9(5):350-57.
39. 39. Shafiei F, Behroozibakhsh M, Abbasian A, Shahnavazi S. Bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement to base metal alloys having different surface treatments. Dent Res J. 2018; 15(1):63.
40. 40. Ahmet BSO, Egilmez F, Ergun G, Nagas IC. Surface treatment effects on bond strength of CAD/CAM fabricated posts to root canal dentin. Am J Dent. 2019; 32(3):113-17.