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
. 2024 Mar 11;24(1):323.
doi: 10.1186/s12903-024-04102-2.

Evaluation of mechanical properties of anatomically customized fiber posts using E-glass short fiber-reinforced composite to restore weakened endodontically treated premolars

Affiliations

Evaluation of mechanical properties of anatomically customized fiber posts using E-glass short fiber-reinforced composite to restore weakened endodontically treated premolars

Dawood Salman Dawood Alshetiwi et al. BMC Oral Health. .

Abstract

Objective: This study was conducted to assess the influence of combining different forms of fiber-reinforced composites (FRC) on the mechanical behavior and bond strength of compromised endodontically treated teeth (ETT).

Materials and methods: Eighty extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into five experimental groups according to the type of intra-radicular restoration and the canal preparation design which was either non-flared (Group 1), flared (Groups 2-5), closed-apex (Groups 1,3,5) or open-apex (Groups 2,4). Standard prefabricated fiber posts were used as intra-radicular restoration for Groups 1-3 while Groups 4-5 were restored with anatomically customized relined fiber posts. After composite core fabrication, all samples were sent for an artificial aging process. Fracture resistance and push-out bond strength tests were then carried out through a universal testing machine followed by mode of failure analysis via a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope.

Results: Pairwise Log-Rank comparisons revealed that the survival rate of Group 2 and Group 3 was significantly lower than all other groups after artificial aging. The highest fracture resistance value (1796 N) was recorded in Group 5 and was significantly higher than that of the other groups (p < 0.05), while Group 2 exhibited the lowest fracture resistance (758 N), which was significantly lower compared to the other groups. Group 5 and Group 4 demonstrated a significantly higher push-out bond strength, at all root thirds, than Group 3, Group 2, and Group 1 (p < 0.05). The most frequently observed failure mode in the tested groups occurred between the resin cement and radicular dentin.

Conclusion: The use of short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) to reline the prefabricated FRC post has been proven to have superior fracture resistance with favorable failure patterns and increased push-out bond strength values compared to standard prefabricated FRC posts.

Keywords: Endodontically treated teeth; Fiber-reinforced composite Post; Post and core; Short fiber-Reinforced composite.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flowchart of the study design
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Different failure patterns after artificial aging. (AC) Complete core fracture. (D) Complete debonding of the post/core complex
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Thermo-mechanical aging survival curve (Kaplan-Meier survival analysis) for experimental groups loaded with 50 N
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
Fracture patterns following load to failure test. (A) Favorable fracture. (B) Unfavorable (catastrophic) fracture
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
Interaction between the mean push-out bond strength of the restorative group and the root third
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
Different failure modes as seen by stereomicroscope. (a) Type I failure magnification of 5x. (b) Type II failure magnification 15x. (c) Type IV failure magnification 5x. (D, Dentin; C, Resin Cement; FP, Fiber Post; Rc, EverX Resin Composite)
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
Representative SEM microimages for the tested specimens under x100 and x200 showing different adhesive failures: (1a, b) between resin cement and dentin (Type IV) in a sample restored with standard FRC post, (2a, b) between resin cement and resin composite (Type III) in a sample restored with anatomically customized FRC post, (3a, b) between fiber post and resin composite (Type II) in a sample restored with anatomically customized FRC post. (De, Dentin; Ce, Resin Cement; Rc, Resin composite Fp, Fiber Post)

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod Published Online. 2004 doi: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Plotino G, Grande NM, Bedini R, Pameijer CH, Somma F. Flexural properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin. Dent Mater Published Online. 2007 doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.06.047. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Zhabuawala MS, Nadig RR, Pai VS, Gowda Y. Comparison of fracture resistance of simulated immature teeth with an open apex using Biodentine and composite resin: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2016;34(4):377–82. doi: 10.4103/0970-4388.191424. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Grandini S, Sapio S, Simonetti M. Use of anatomic post and core for reconstructing an endodontically treated tooth: a case report. J Adhes Dent. 2003;5(3):243–7. - PubMed
    1. Grandini S, Goracci C, Monticelli F, Borracchini A, Ferrari M. SEM evaluation of the cement layer thickness after luting two different posts. J Adhes Dent. 2005;7:235–40. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources