Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Aug 13;23(1):566.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03217-2.

Systematic review fracture resistance of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with fiber reinforced composites- a systematic review

Affiliations

Systematic review fracture resistance of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with fiber reinforced composites- a systematic review

Harish Selvaraj et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Background: Large cavity designs and access cavities impair endodontically treated tooth fracture resistance. As the tooth's strength is known to reduce significantly after the root canal treatment, occlusal loading as a result of functions such as chewing, biting and certain parafunctional tendencies makes the endodontically treated tooth vulnerable to fracture. Hence, after endodontic treatment, it is vital to give adequate and appropriate restorative material to avoid tooth fractures. Accordingly, the choice of such restorative material should be dictated by the property of fracture resistance.

Objective: The goal of this study was to conduct a systematic review and critical analysis of available data from in vitro studies examining the fracture resistance of endodontically treated posterior teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composites.

Methodology: The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis (PRIS-MA) Statement was used to guide the reporting of this systematic review A comprehensive literature search was performed using MEDLINE (via PubMed), Scopus, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and LILACS. A manual search of the reference lists of the articles was also performed. The databases provided a total of 796 studies from the electronic systematic search. The databases provided a total of 796 studies from the electronic systematic search. Two reviewers scrutinized the papers for eligibility based on inclusion/exclusion criteria and extracted data. The studies were assessed for their potential risk of bias. Based on modified JBI & CRIS (checklist for reporting in vitro studies) guidelines, along with the methodology and treatment objective, we have formulated 13 parameters specifically to assess the risk of bias. A total of 18 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for qualitative analysis. Considering the high heterogeneity of the studies included, a meta-analysis could not be performed.

Results: The majority of the included studies had a moderate or high risk of bias. When compared to traditional hybrid composites, fiber-reinforced composites showed increased fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth in the majority of investigations. On the other hand, limited evidence was found for the bulk fill composites. Moreover, moderate evidence was found for the fracture resistance of inlays and fiber posts with fiber-reinforced composites for core build-up in endodontically treated teeth. No evidence could be found comparing the fracture resistance of endo crowns and fiber-reinforced composites in endodontically treated teeth.

Conclusion: According to the research, using fiber-reinforced composites instead of conventional hybrid composites improves the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. However, there was a high risk of bias in the research considered. No judgments could be reached about the superiority of one material over another based-on comparisons between other core restorations.

Keywords: Endodontics; Fiber-reinforced composites; Fracture strength; Polymeric composite biomaterials; Post-endodontic dental restoration; Short e-glass fiber.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the systematic review process *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers). **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools.

References

    1. Trope M, Langer I, Maltz D, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated premolars. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1986;2:35–8. - PubMed
    1. Maxwell EH, Braly BV, Eakle WS. Incompletely fractured teeth–a survey of endodontists. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1986;61:113–7. - PubMed
    1. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;67:458–67. - PubMed
    1. Panitvisai P, Messer HH. Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1995;21:57–61. - PubMed
    1. Randow K, Glantz PO. On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986;44:271–7. - PubMed

Publication types