Metal vs fibre posts - which is clinically superior for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth?

Abstract

Data sources Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases. Grey literature searches (OpenGrey, ProQuest databases), hand searches in the reference list of eligible studies and relevant journals.Study selection Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and prospective clinical trials (PCTs) with direct comparisons between metal posts (MPs) and fibre posts (FPs). Trials contained a minimum of ten patients and endodontically treated permanent teeth that had received either single crowns or fixed partial dentures (bridges) and followed up for a minimum of one year. The primary outcome compared the difference in failure rates between FPs and MPs, with subgroup analysis comparing location (anterior/posterior), type of MP (cast post core/preformed MP) and most frequent modes of failure (debond/root fracture).Data extraction and synthesis Study selection, data collection and risk of bias assessments were completed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements were discussed with a third reviewer to reach a consensus. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (RCTs) or the ROBINS-I tool (PCTs). The quality of responses was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development And Evaluation (GRADE) approach. The meta-analysis (MA) was performed using the Mantel-Haenszel method. Trial heterogeneity was assessed using random- and fixed-effects models. Inter-examiner agreement during the database search and study selection process was checked using the kappa statistic.Results After duplicates were removed, 1,026 articles were assessed and screened by title and abstract. Of these, 21 articles underwent full-text evaluation, with ten articles meeting the eligibility criteria. Eligible studies included six RCTs and four PCTs. A total of 844 endodontically treated teeth (ETT) were restored with intra-radicular posts in 704 participants. Four hundred and fifty-three ETT were restored with FPs and 391 with MPs. The mean age of participants was 42.7 (33.95-55.45) years, with a mean follow-up period of 50.95 (12-154) months. Most studies reported failures during the follow-up period, but the MA revealed no significant difference between FPs and MPs in terms of failure rates (P = 0.39; RR: 0.82 mm; CI: 0.52-1.29). Sub-analysis showed no difference in failure rates between anterior and posterior regions and no difference when comparing FPs to cast post and core vs prefabricated MPs. Root fractures and post debondings were the most common modes of failure, but within these failures, no difference was observed between FPs and MPs.Conclusions No evidence was identified for a difference in failure rates between FPs and MPs. This was independent of the type of MP and position within the arch. Reporting of RCTs and PCTs was variable and further high-quality studies are needed.