Original papers
The effect of fiber post location on fracture resistance
of endodontically treated maxillary premolars
Wpływ umiejscowienia wkładu z włókna szklanego na odporność
na złamanie zębów przedtrzonowych szczęki, leczonych endodontycznie
Eshamsul Sulaiman1,A,E,F, Nada Alarami1,A–D,F, Yuh Ing Wong2,A–D, Wen Hui Lee2,A–D, Afaf Al-Haddad3,C,E,F
1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Taiping Health Clinic, Malaysia
3
Department of Dental Materials and Equipment, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahsa University, Selangor, Malaysia
2
A – research concept and design; B – collection and/or assembly of data; C – data analysis and interpretation;
D – writing the article; E – critical revision of the article; F – final approval of the article
Dental and Medical Problems, ISSN 1644-387X (print), ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Address for correspondence
Nada Alarami
E-mail: nada_alarmi@yahoo.com
Funding sources
Dent Med Probl. 2018;55(3):275–279
Abstract
Background. There is no sufficient literature on the effect of post location on endodontically treated premolar teeth with 2 roots.
Research grant No. ER002- 2011A, University of Malaya,
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Objectives. The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of fiber post location on fracture resistance and
failure mode of endodontically treated premolars with 2 roots.
Conflict of interest
Material and methods. Fifty extracted maxillary first premolars with 2 roots were divided randomly
into 5 groups. Group 1 was comprised of sound teeth, which received only metal crowns (control). Teeth
from groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were decoronated 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and were endodontically treated. No post was placed in group 2 teeth. Teeth from groups 3, 4 and 5 were given a fiber
post placed in the buccal canal, palatal canal, and both buccal and palatal canals, respectively. All teeth in
groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were built up with composite and full coverage metal crowns. A compressive static
load was applied at an angle of 25° to the crowns with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, until fracture.
None declared
Received on July 2, 2018
Reviewed on August 13, 2018
Accepted on August 27, 2018
Results. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences among the groups
(p = 0.002). A post hoc test showed significantly lower fracture resistance of group 4 compared to
group 5 (p = 0.011). Furthermore, group 2 had significantly less fracture resistance compared to group 1
(p = 0.021) and group 5 (p = 0.002). According to Fisher’s exact test, different post locations are non-significantly associated with fracture mode (p = 0.256).
Conclusions. Fiber post location has a significant effect on fracture resistance of severely damaged, endodontically treated maxillary premolars with 2 roots. However, post placement in the palatal root is preferred, as it maintains the restorability of the tooth.
DOI
10.17219/dmp/94656
Copyright
© 2018 by Wroclaw Medical University
and Polish Dental Society
This is an article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Key words: fracture mode, fracture resistance, fiber post, maxillary premolars with 2 roots, post location
Słowa kluczowe: rodzaj złamania, odporność na złamanie, wkład z włókna szklanego, zęby przedtrzonowe
szczęki z 2 korzeniami, umiejscowienie wkładu
276
Introduction
Endodontically treated teeth are generally weaker and
more prone to fracture compared to teeth that have not
been root-filled, mainly due to loss of tooth structure
from caries, trauma, or previous restorations, and access
to the root canal itself.1 Loss of tooth structure due to access preparation results in increased cuspal deflection
during mastication, which subsequently increases the
possibility of cusp fracture and microleakage at the margin of the restorations.2 It has been suggested that fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth is directly
related to the remaining tooth structure, especially in the
buccolingual dimension.3
Endodontically treated teeth can have a good prognosis and be restored to full function, even serving as an
abutment for a fixed and removable prosthesis, when adequate root filling quality is ensured and sufficient tooth
structure remains to support the final restoration.4,5
A post is recommended when the remaining coronal
tooth structure is insufficient to retain a core build-up
to support the final restoration.6–8 Different prefabricated post systems have been introduced and successfully
used in clinical situations, which decreases chairside
time and reduces the cost on the side of the patient.9 The
glass fiber post is a well-accepted treatment modality for
the restoration of endodontically treated teeth due to its
superior mechanical properties, such as uniform stress
distribution, higher fracture resistance, superior optical properties, and a modulus of elasticity similar to that
of dentine.10,11
Posts are able to protect teeth from fracture by dissipating or distributing forces along the tooth.12 Posts are also
indicated to increase the retention of the amalgam and
composite core. However, not all endodontically treated
teeth require a post,2 and since posts do not reinforce
such teeth,13 their use should be limited to those with
inadequate tooth structure. In addition, preparing space
for the post is associated with some risk.2 Although rare,
the risk includes perforation in the apical portion of the
root or into the lateral fluted areas of the mid-root, called
“strip perforation”.14 The most common types of fractures
in post-retained restorations are root fracture, loosening
of the post and fracture of the post.15 Root fractures are
most often unrestorable, which subsequently results in
the extraction of the tooth.15
According to Gutmann, maxillary premolars often have
marked tapering and thin roots, which increase the risk
of root perforation and fracture.16 Additionally, furcation
grooves or developmental depressions on the palatal side
of the buccal root also increase the risk of endodontic
and prosthodontic treatment fractures, because the average dentine layer at the deepest part of invagination was
found to be too thin, equal to 0.81 mm.17 In a retrospective study of 468 teeth that had fractured in vivo, 78% were
premolars, with 62% of these being maxillary premolars.18
E. Sulaiman, et al. Fracture resistance of premolars
Since maxillary first premolars normally have 2 roots,
dentists may face a dilemma while choosing the canal to
place the post in (buccal or palatal, or both buccal and palatal). If possible, both canals of teeth with 2 roots should
be utilized for post placement, since roots of premolars
require bulk and length for the successful use of the post
and core.19 To our knowledge, there has been no study on
the effect of post location on endodontically treated premolar teeth with 2 separate roots. Thus, this study was
conducted to compare the effect of fiber post location on
fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically
treated maxillary first premolars with 2 roots.
Material and methods
Fifty non-carious, maxillary first premolars with 2 roots,
extracted for periodontal reasons, were collected. All the
teeth were disinfected in 0.5% chloramine-T solution for 1
week according to ISO/TS 11405 (2003). The selected premolars were examined under a stereomicroscope at ×10
magnification (SZX7; Olympus Corporation, Tokyo, Japan)
to ensure fracture-free roots. All external debris was removed
from the roots with an ultrasonic scaler (Peizon® Master 400;
Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland). Tooth dimensions were measured using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan); teeth with a length of 21.5 ±1 mm, root length
of 14 ±1 mm, buccolingual width of 8 ±1 mm, and mesiodistal width of 6 ±1 mm were selected. The teeth were randomly
and equally divided into 5 groups to be restored as follows:
– group 1 – no post/core, only metal crown restorations
(control);
– group 2 – root canal treatment, composite core, metal
crown (control);
– group 3 – fiber post placed in the buccal canal, followed
by composite resin core and metal crown;
– group 4 – fiber post placed in the palatal canal, followed
by composite resin core and metal crown;
– group 5 – fiber post placed in both the buccal and palatal
canals, followed by composite resin core and metal crown.
All teeth except for group 1 were decoronated 17 mm
from the apical end of the root toward the crown by means
of a horizontal cut, perpendicular to the long axis of the
root. Teeth in groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were endodontically
treated. An access cavity was established in a conventional manner by using an endodontic access bur (Dentsply
Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Specimens were prepared using the step-back technique with K-files (Dentsply
Maillefer). The working length was 1 mm shorter than the
file length (16 mm). The master apical file used was size
30. The canals were repeatedly irrigated after each filing
with 3.0 mL of 1% sodium hypochlorite solution (NaOCl)
(Clorox (Malaysia) Industries Sdn. Bhd., Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia). The teeth were obturated with gutta-percha cones
(Dentsply Maillefer), using the lateral condensation technique and AH Plus®root canal sealer (Dentsply Maillefer).
Dent Med Probl. 2018;55(3):275–279
After the sealer had set, gutta-percha in groups 3, 4 and
5 was first removed by a heated endodontic plugger until canal orifices were seen. FRC Postec Plus® fiber posts
(Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) size 0 with a diameter of 0.6 mm were used. The post space was prepared
with a low-speed matching drill, which corresponded to
the FRC Postec Plus fiber post size. Finally, 4 mm of guttapercha was left at the apex of the canals, where the post
was indicated.
A thin layer of light-body, silicone-based impression
material (Aquasil Ultra® XLV; Dentsply Maillefer) was
first applied around the root surface to simulate the periodontal ligament. Each tooth was then embedded in coldcure epoxy resin (Mirapox® – 230 A and B; Miracon Sdn.
Bhd., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia), using a silicone mold
2 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ), 4 mm
from the coronal surface, to simulate the bone level.
The post length was standardized at 15 mm. After trial
insertion, the post was rinsed with normal saline, and then
dried. First, adhesive (AdheSE® DC; Ivoclar Vivadent)
was applied in the prepared canal and the coronal part
of the tooth. Then, the post was cemented with MultiCore® Flow dual-curing composite (Ivoclar Vivadent)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. A matrix
band was placed around the tooth to ease the core buildup procedure. The composite resin was flooded into the
matrix to form the core until the desired height of 6 mm
from the CEJ level was reached, covering the coronal end
of the post. The occlusal surface was light-cured for 40 s.
The matrix band was then removed and an additional 40
s of polymerization was subsequently performed on the
surfaces around the core to ensure complete setting of the
core material.
Each specimen was prepared to receive a metal crown
(Wiron® 99; Bego, Bremen, Germany). In order to standardize the preparation convergence angle, a diamond
bur (998FG021 round-ended, tapered with a guide pin;
NTI-Kahla GmbH, Kahla, Germany) was attached to
a high-speed rotary handpiece, which was fixed to a paralleling device (custom-made at the Department of Mechanical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University
of Malaya). A guide pin at the tip of the bur produced
a standardized depth of the chamfer margin of 1 mm. The
core height of 6 mm from CEJ was marked by using a digital caliper (Mitutoyo). Occlusal reduction was done using
a high-speed diamond bur (S811-314-037-7-ML; Swisstec
3D Akus AG, Uster, Switzerland) up to the marking line.
A one-step impression technique was used to take the impression of the preparation specimens, using Impregum
Soft Polyether Impression Material (Impregnum® Penta
Soft ESPE; 3M, Maplewood, USA). The crowns were fabricated using a non-precious alloy. The axial and occlusal
thicknesses of the crowns were standardized to 1 mm and
2 mm, respectively, using a crown caliper and tungsten
carbide burs. A small indentation, measuring 3 mm in diameter and 1 mm in depth, was made on the buccal cusp,
277
Fig. 1. The position of a specimen in a customized metal holder
in a universal testing machine for static loading at 25°
2 mm from the central fossa of each crown. The crowns
were cemented using self-adhesive resin cement (Multilink Speed®; Ivoclar Vivadent).
Each specimen in the resin block was fixed in a customized metal holder in a universal testing machine (Autograph; Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan), 25° to the crown (Fig. 1).
A compressive load was applied using a stainless steel,
round-ended loading rod, 3 mm in diameter, at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The load was applied on the
palatal cusp, 2 mm from the central fossa. The compressive load was applied until fracture occurred. The data
was analyzed using SPSS software, v. 12 (IBM Corp., Armonk, USA). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was
employed to compare the mean fracture loads. The significance value was set at p = 0.05. The multiple comparisons post hoc Bonferroni test was used to detect significant differences among the groups. The fracture pattern
of each specimen was recorded. The fracture mode was
classified into either restorable or unrestorable. Fractures
occurring as complete or partial post and core debonding,
or a post-core-tooth complex fracture above the epoxy
resin level were considered restorble. The unrestorable
fracture modes were represented by those specimens that
displayed a post/core/root fracture below the epoxy resin
level, vertical root fractures, or cracks below the epoxy
resin level.
Results
The means of the fracture load and frequencies of fracture modes for all groups are presented in Table 1. The
Shapiro-Wilk test indicated that the dependent variable
was normally distributed (p > 0.05). One-way ANOVA
showed that statistically significant differences between
the groups (p = 0.002). The post hoc test showed no significant differences between group 3 and group 4. However, teeth with a post in the palatal canal (group 4) showed
E. Sulaiman, et al. Fracture resistance of premolars
278
Table 1. Comparison of fracture loads and failure modes among the groups
Groups
Control (sound teeth)c
Fracture load [N]
mean ±SD
F-statistic*
(df )
p-value
restorable n (%)
unrestorable n (%)
3 (30.0)
7 (70.0)
8 (80.0)
2 (20.0)
4 (40.0)
6 (60.0)
937.2 ±128.3
6 (60.0)
4 (40.0)
1259.5 ±220.1
3 (30.0)
7 (70.0)
1215.9 ±320.7
b,c
Control (no post)
745.46 ±265.6
Fiber post in buccal canal
1224.1 ±507.4
a
Fiber post in palatal canal
Fiber post in both buccal and palatal canalsa,b
Failure mode
4 (5.13)
0.002
Data is presented as mean ± standard deviation (SD) or number (percentage). df – degrees of freedom; * one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA);
a
group 4 vs group 5 (p = 0.011); b group 2 vs group 5 (p = 0.002); c group 2 vs group 1 (p = 0.021).
lower fracture resistance compared to those restored
with posts in both the buccal and palatal canals (group 5)
(p = 0.011). In addition, group 2 (teeth without a post) had
significantly less fracture resistance compared to group 1
(sound teeth) (p = 0.021) and group 5 (p = 0.002).
As regards failure mode, 40–60% of the endodontically
treated maxillary premolars restored with a fiber post
failed catastrophically. According to the results of a series
of Fisher’s exact tests, different post placement is non-significantly associated with fracture mode (p = 0.256).
Discussion
The main disadvantage of using human teeth in studies
conducted in vitro is the difficulty of specimen standardization due to different physical and mechanical properties of teeth, the morphological variation of the pulp, the
aging of the tooth, and the presence of micro-cracks in the
dentine.20 Therefore, teeth with similar mesiodistal and
buccolingual dimensions at CEJ were chosen rather than
teeth with a similar crown height. However, standardizing
the root morphology and anatomy was an enormous challenge, which might have affected the results of the study.
In the tested groups, teeth were decoronated approx.
2 mm above CEJ to simulate the worst-case scenario with
substantial loss of tooth structure, whereby the post must
be indicated to retain the core. This was also to provide
a 2-millimeter ferrule height, as recommended by other
studies.21,22 In the present study, teeth were loaded on the
palatal cusp, 25° to the long axis of the tooth, to simulate
the presence of non-working side interference.23
Many studies have shown that a high percentage of dentists believe that posts do strengthen endodontically
treated teeth.24–26 The present study demonstrated that
teeth restored with fiber posts, resin cement, composite
core, and a crown were more resistant to fracture than
those without a post. This showed that fiber posts might
strengthen severely compromised, endodontically treated
premolars. The results of the present study were also in
agreement with previous studies, which found that the
absence of a post decreased fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.27,28
However, when a fiber post was placed in the palatal
root canals, fracture resistance was not significantly higher compared to the roots without a post. This implied
that a post placed in the palatal root canal of maxillary
premolars might not provide resistance to fracture when
the force was directed on the same cusp (non-working
side interference). The current study also demonstrated
that a ferrule alone, without a post, could not resist the
fracture when the load was applied on the palatal cusp.
However, Zicari et al. demonstrated that there was no difference in fracture resistance between the premolars restored with and without fiber posts when a 2-millimeter
ferrule was present. This disagreement might be referred
to the use of only single-rooted premolars in that study.29
In the current study, teeth with a post in the palatal canal showed lower fracture resistance compared to those
restored with posts in both the buccal and palatal canals.
This can be attributed to the morphology of the buccal
root. It was stated that placing the post in the buccal
root of bifurcated maxillary premolars must be avoided,
as root canal preparation and post preparation resulted
in lesser residual dentin thickness.30 Since the eccentric
force was applied in this study, most of the stress was on
the buccal root and with no post placed to support the
buccal root, and the residual tooth structure was inadequate to resist the fracture load. However, placing the
posts in both the buccal and palatal root canals supports
the lesser dentin thickness in the buccal root and enhances fracture resistance.
Even 40–60% of the endodontically treated maxillary
premolars restored with a fiber post in this study failed
catastrophically, and the group with a fiber post placed
in the palatal canal showed a higher percentage of restorable failure (60%). This could be attributed to the direction of the force exerted on the palatal cusp, which means
that the palatal post is closer to the fracture fulcrum, and
thus receives less stress compared to the post placed in
the buccal canal. However, normal intraoral masticatory
forces are estimated to range between 500 and 600 N.31
Therefore, the results of this study suggest that prefabricated fiber posts can safely be used in maxillary premolars with 2 roots, as fracture resistance proved to be well
above 600 N.
Dent Med Probl. 2018;55(3):275–279
The design of the present study attempted to simulate
true clinical situations; however, it is difficult to interpret
the results directly for clinical practice. This is due to
some limitations, including the fact that it was an in vitro
investigation, which could not fully replicate the dynamics of oral conditions. Furthermore, a static load which
was applied on 1 point in a monostatic pattern did not
represent intraoral conditions. This study evaluated only
maxillary first premolars, and thus the results may only be
applied to that group of teeth.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study, fiber post location
has a significant effect on fracture resistance of severely
damaged, endodontically treated maxillary premolars
with 2 roots. However, post placement in the palatal root
is preferred, as it maintains the restorability of the tooth.
References
1. Steele A, Johnson BR. In vitro fracture strength of endodontically
treated premolars. J Endod. 1999;25(1):6–8.
2. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration
of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. J Endod.
2004;30(5):289–301.
3. 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.
4. Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour EJ. Effect
of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod. 2009;35(1):1428–1432.
5. Morgano SM, Rodrigues AHC, Sabrosa CE. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48(2):397–416.
6. Schwartz RS, Fransman R. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics: Materials, clinical strategies, and procedures for restoration
of access cavities: A review. J Endod. 2005;31:151–165.
7. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core, and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc.
2005;136(5):611–619.
8. Peroz I, Blankenstein F, Lange KP, Naumann M. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores: A review. Quintessence
Int. 2005;36(9):737–746.
9. Hochman N, Feinzaig I, Zalkind M. Effect of design of pre-fabricated
posts and post heads on the retention of various cements and core
materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2003;30(7):702–707.
10. Plotino G, Grande NM, Bedini R, Pameijer CH, Somma F. Flexural
properties of endodontic posts and human root dentin. Dent
Mater. 2007;23(9):1129–1135.
11. Seefeld F, Wenz HJ, Ludwig K, Kern M. Resistance to fracture and
structural characteristics of different fiber reinforced post systems.
Dent Mater. 2007;23(3):265–271.
12. Makade CS, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, Patil PG. A comparative
evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth
restored with different post core systems: An in-vitro study. J Adv
Prosthodont. 2011;3(2):90–95.
13. Morgano SM. Restoration of pulpless teeth: Application of traditional principles in present and future contexts. J Prosthet Dent.
1996;75(4):375–380.
14. Mahmoud T, Walton RE. Endodontics: Principles and Practice. 4th ed.
St. Louis, MO: Saunders; 2009:322–339.
15. Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A, Asmussen E. A survey of failed post-retained
restorations. Clin Oral Invest. 2008;12(1):37–44.
279
16. Gutmann JL. The dentine-rot complex: Anatomical and biologic
considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet
Dent. 1992;67(4):458–467.
17. Hargreaves KM, Cohen S. Cohen’s Pathways of the Pulp. 10th ed. St.
Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier; 2011:148–233.
18. Rud J, Omnell K-A. Root fractures due to corrosion diagnostic
aspects. Scand J Dent Res. 1970;78(5):397–403.
19. Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE. Fundamental of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago, IL: Quintessence
Publishing Co., Inc.; 1997:85–103.
20. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Le Bell-Rönnlöf AM, Lassila LV, Vallittu
PK. Creugers NH. In vitro fracture behavior of maxillary premolars
with metal crowns and several post-and-core systems. Eur J Oral
Sci. 2006;114(3):250–256.
21. Watanabe MU, Anchieta RB, Rocha EP, et al. Influence of crown
ferrule heights and dowel material selection on the mechanical
behavior of root-filled teeth: A finite element analysis. J Prosthodont. 2012;21(4):304–311.
22. Tan PLB, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, et al. In vitro fracture resistance
of endodontically treated central incisors with varying ferrule
heights and configurations. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;93(4):331–336.
23. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations
for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic
review of the literature – Part 1. Comparison and micro- and
macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38(9):733–743.
24. Morgano SM, Hashem AF, Fotoohi K, Rose L. A nationwide survey
of contemporary philosophies and techniques of restoring
endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72(3):259–267.
25. Eckerbom M, Magnusson T. Restoring endodontically treated
teeth: A survey of current opinions among board-certified
prosthodontists and general dental practitioners in Sweden. Int J
Prosthodont. 2001;14(3):245–249.
26. Naumann, M, Kiessling S, Seemann, R. Treatment concepts for
restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A nationwide survey
of dentists in Germany. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(5):332–338.
27. Salameh Z, Sorrentino R, Papacchini F, et al. Fracture resistance
and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars
restored using resin composite with or without translucent glass
fiber posts. J Endod. 2006;32(8):752–755.
28. Santana FR, Castro CG, Simamoto-Júnior PC, et al. Influence of post
system and remaining coronal tooth tissue on biomechanical
behavior of root filled molar teeth. Int Endod J. 2011;44(5):386–394.
29. Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Scotti R, Naert I. Effect of ferrule and post
placement on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth
after fatigue loading. J Dent. 2013;41(3):207–215.
30. Pilo R, Shapenco E, Lewinstein I. Residual dentin thickness in
bifurcated maxillary first premolars after root canal and post
space preparation with parallel-sided drills. J Prosthet Dent.
2008;99(4):267–273.
31. Rosentritt M, Fürer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in
vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-colored posts and
cores. J Oral Rehabil. 2000;27(7):595–601.