This study was conducted to compare the post-fracture survival rate of endodontically treated molar endodontically treated teeth (molar ETT) restored with resin composites or crowns and to identify potential risk factors, using a retrospective cohort design.

Dental records of molar ETT with crowns or composite restorations (recall period, 2015–2019) were collected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. The incidence of unrestorable fractures was identified, and molar ETT were classified according to survival. Information on potential risk factors was collected. Survival rates and potential risk factors were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier log-rank test and Cox regression model.

The overall survival rate of molar ETT was 87% (mean recall period, 31.73 ± 17.56 months). The survival rates of molar ETT restored with composites and crowns were 81.6% and 92.7%, reflecting a significant difference (p < 0.05). However, ETT restored with composites showed a 100% survival rate if only 1 surface was lost, which was comparable to the survival rate of ETT with crowns. The survival rates of ETT with composites and crowns were significantly different (97.6% vs. 83.7%) in the short-term (12–24 months), but not in the long-term (> 24 months) (87.8% vs. 79.5%).

The survival rate from fracture was higher for molar ETT restored with crowns was higher than for ETT restored with composites, especially in the first 2 years after restoration. Molar ETT with limited tooth structure loss only on the occlusal surface could be successfully restored with composite restorations.

The aim of this study was to perform a clinical and radiographic analysis of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) restored with cast metal posts (CMPs) or prefabricated glass fiber posts (GFPs) and crowns.

Fifty ETT were restored with 25 CMPs and 25 GFPs at a private dental clinic between 2001 and 2016. The restorations consisted of 12 all-ceramic crowns, 31 metal-ceramic crowns, and 7 composite resin crowns. Demographic data, type of teeth, type of post-and-core system, time of placement, crown restorations, the number of proximal contacts, the type of antagonist, and reports of any complications after post-and-core placement were recorded for each patient. Assessments were performed at baseline (radiographic) and follow-up (radiographic and clinical). Data were analyzed by the McNemar test, the Pearson χ² test, and Kaplan-Meier survival curves (α = 0.05). The mean follow-up was 67.6 months.

No significant difference was observed for any of the radiographic parameters when the baseline and final radiographs were compared. In the clinical evaluation, anatomical form (p = 0.009) and occlusion (p = 0.001) showed significant differences according to the type of crown restoration; specifically, metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns outperformed composite resin crowns.

CMPs and GFPs showed favorable results for restoring ETT after 6 years of follow-up. All-ceramic and metal-ceramic crowns showed higher survival rates and better clinical outcomes.