KACD
Articles
- Page Path
- HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 38(4); 2013 > Article
-
Research Article
Retentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an
in vitro study - Mahtab Memarpour1, Fereshteh Shafiei2, Maryam Abbaszadeh3
-
2013;38(4):-221.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.4.215
Published online: November 12, 2013
1Oral and Dental Health Care Research Center, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
2Oral and Dental Health Care Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
3Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. JFIF d d Ducky d qhttp://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/ |er˭|I|-fGK.rΛp8XV1%K6mvG+tc+qE &ǸC_Nm:l=_/m5^[dߌڇ.c<%:)tQ$Ow~-aY;UJ >=F)2[nk؆?훐 M=l6[4(O.]2#-H^n#->&mp5~Fӛ+|| S,xag% qkEUzUgæBhߕP(7]kFnq?֖Cpru Z6*rEڊtS|*tI*E}7R<,nUU֫^I7Q*mSly%rdȓd8hE<9oHhMfNSRj[i7D[Rj݊+kდq{"$$H?p \̅S?㭻;t~ R߁ )^/>Qj`yt[w ԛ;² ~+ ߔ_ YW~|o] ?x^ᯛ `ʼn;g)T@vWn]>&4l p+$D̢1l|ȨF%-} .9[}w~
ԠLM9hСablfe&QoW !s ?wjLK?s7yO>(=C~_nyǜu? v 3vyo oI@qV-jeES^[9WoSܝh"l2C1a͔CiJ@3:Pճw= /7ovuk+\V;lDgն <[A+r X~d;m!_s8ݖ;;.0llUC+?i#_crʙ1~C.\q u l8Hܶ2m`ܻM3Tov|Bs rɵ"oLS-
DКw=Tv@f '6|YlD͓Y%-#Ѯo%:&!3o%\J<02;K87>^vgƓ# ;ݝmz^Y6=PS39U%~
&f#
}o!muH; ʲŇ˷yvP+&.7e[3'vR4Yj̗IZ`e˽3o[WU{
m[sUbۋZǾۆl6~9'V*.\S2<Sd*zY[aŶ`]C$n.v^Ʌ
dng>ەZ,Mmϑ :n6nϦezW qUJ4! ۇ4R! =>>F n|Q[{pRO 17ƕ~._I ''00k=b՛o}Osðc2'o\3}ݭQ^ 2 . R1yKȣtAݿ-u ܾw!`?1Whn|gzU o[ECWwjUIן)^h#1ɭ!/Z
np;o;ΗŻkXs."6E`Z1
עӐ9Kl8qd q} 2Stt;#j>;խabONŗ=fwP1j)l6J̶|gV 2`y/0E˛6+ԫ1?
6}KW c\KoKͨ2ۅFws*TԞLיuDx .kCzWXhy۶gLu|%TnupǺl-S* P RaLnT+c+*xl.v!.U=|; !_L̎뱚U=4hm:ٯ"y)$:>%(n}X'p[ȴ
^˒4kƓmzDx
\
'Nq amP7nyN݅=
- Correspondence to Fereshteh Shafiei, DMD, MScD. Associate Professor, Oral and Dental Health Care Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran. TEL, +98 711 6263193-4; FAX, +98 711 6263192; shafief@sums.ac.ir
• Received: May 19, 2013 • Revised: July 14, 2013 • Accepted: July 16, 2013
©Copyights 2013. The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
- 1,490 Views
- 10 Download
- 11 Crossref
Abstract
-
Objectives To determine the retentive strength and failure mode of undercut composite post, glass fiber post and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable composite resin and resin-cement.
-
Materials and Methods Coronal parts of 120 primary canine teeth were sectioned and specimens were treated endodontically. The teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 20). Prepared root canals received intracanal retainers with a short composite post, undercut composite post, glass fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement, and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement. After crown reconstruction, samples were tested for retentive strength and failure mode. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05).
-
Results There were statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.001). Mean bond strength in the undercut group was significantly greater than in the short composite post (p = 0.030), and the glass fiber post (p = 0.001) and the polyethylene fiber post group luted with resin-cement (p = 0.008). However, the differences between the undercut group and the groups with flowable composite as the luting agent were not significant (p = 0.068, p = 0.557). Adhesive failure was more frequent in the fiber post groups.
-
Conclusions Although the composite post with undercutting showed the greatest resistance to dislodgement, fiber posts cemented with flowable composite resin provided acceptable results in terms of retentive strength and fracture mode.
Introduction
Although parents prefer restoration of anterior primary teeth in their children rather than replacing the teeth with appliances following extraction, restoration remains a challenge for pediatric dentists.1 The teeth are small with short crowns, and may be extensively destroyed by caries.2 Under these circumstances, effective bonding to the remaining tooth structure by tooth-colored restoration materials may be compromised.3 Therefore, intracanal posts and retainers have been suggested for use after tooth pulpectomy. Among the types of retainers that have been used to increase restoration retention are nickel-titanium and other metallic posts, orthodontic wires, biological posts, short composite resin posts, fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts such as polyethylene ribbon fiber posts, and glass fiber posts.4-18
The use of a short composite resin post is a simple technique to compress the composite into the canal and create a tapered post.8,9 A similar technique, called the mushroom-shaped resin post, involves creating an undercut around the root canal walls and building up the composite within the entire canal. This method results in better retention than short composite posts alone.8
Prefabricated tooth-colored FRC posts are an alternative to metal posts for tooth restoration.9,18 One improved new system is a hybrid of unidirectional and braided polyethylene fibers known as Ribbond Triaxial.19-21 Glass fiber is another type of FRC post composed of unidirectional glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix for added strength.21,22 EverStick is a flexible pre-impregnated glass fiber post that adapts to the canal. Both types of flexible fibers improve the aesthetic results, increase fracture resistance of the composite resin restoration and have a modulus of elasticity similar to that of dentin.20,21,23 A number of studies have documented the clinical and laboratory success of polyethylene fiber and glass fiber posts in restoring primary teeth.10-18
The choice of luting cement as well as post selection are important factors that influence the bond strength of post retention.23 In primary teeth, flowable composites are used most frequently as the luting agent.11-18 However, other materials such as resin cements have also been introduced mainly for use in permanent teeth. The new generation of resin luting cements provides high retention of intracanal posts. Dual-cured resin cements were developed to take advantages of the benefits of both self- and light-cured compounds. Polymerization starts with light-curing and is assumed to continue even in the absence of light. However, the technique is sensitive and the cement is highly viscous.23,24 Variolink II is a dual-cured resin cement with good mechanical properties due to high load of fillers. The cement attains favorable characteristics with low light intensity.24 Several studies have reported successful results with resin cements for posts in permanent teeth.25-28
Most studies to date have assessed bond strength in different kinds of posts and luting cements in permanent teeth, whereas few have evaluated the resistance to removal of different aesthetic posts luted to primary teeth. To investigate the effect of resin cement on post retention, this study was designed to compare the retentive strength of composite posts versus two aesthetic fiber posts cemented either with flowable composite or resin cement in anterior primary teeth. The hypothesis was that the resin cement would provide increased retentive strength with polyethylene or glass fiber posts.
Materials and Methods
After the research protocol for this study was approved by the Human Ethics Review Committee of the School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, 120 sound maxillary primary canine teeth extracted for orthodontic treatment were selected for this study. All the patients' parents were informed about the purpose of the research and how the extracted teeth would be used for in vitro research.
To remove debris, the teeth were scaled, cleaned with fluoride-free pumice and a prophylaxis brush, and immersed in 0.1% chloramine T solution for 2 weeks for disinfection, and then stored in distilled water. None of the teeth showed any signs of external root resorption. All the surfaces were examined with an explorer to rule out any teeth with enamel defects, cracks or caries. The crown of each tooth was sectioned transversally 2 mm above the cementenamel junction.
After a standard coronal access cavity was prepared, the working length of each canal was recorded as the length of the initial file at the apical foramen minus 1 mm. Then the root canals were prepared with K-files (Mani INC., Utsunomiya Tochigi, Japan) and obturated with zinc-oxide eugenol paste (ZOE, Kemdent, Swindon, UK) with a packing and injection techniques. Then the apex of the root was covered with red wax and the apical parts of the roots (from 2 mm below the cementenamel junction) were placed in the center of cold-cured acrylic resin blocks measuring 1 × 1 × 1 cm. Then the specimens were divided randomly into six groups of 20 teeth each. Before crown construction was begun, about 4 mm of paste in the coronal part of the canal was removed with a diamond fissure bur.5,11,17,18 The presence of eugenol in the ZOE is known to interfere with composite resin polymerization. Therefore a thin layer (approximately 1 mm) of polycarboxylate cement (Durelon, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA) was placed over the ZOE. After all the paste was completely removed from the root canal walls, pretreatment was done as described below.
Group 1. Short composite resin post group (control). The tooth structure and root canal walls were etched with 37% phosphoric acid (3M ESPE) for 15 seconds followed by rinsing for 15 seconds and gentle drying with a weak air stream. During the procedure, surface moisture was maintained as recommend for wet bonding techniques. Then a 2-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Tetric N-Bond, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions was placed in the preparation, thinned by applying a weak air stream, and light-cured for 20 seconds with a halogen light curing unit (Coltolux, Coltène/Whaledent AG, Altstätten, Switzerland) at a power density of 600 mW/cm2. The crown was reconstructed with a nanohybrid composite resin (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent) with an incremental technique to reduce polymerization shrinkage and void formation during composite placement.17 At first, the entrance of the root canal and the canal were filled with composite resin, and then the crown was built up with the same composite to about 5 - 6 mm in diameter and 6 mm in length. Each increment was less than 1.5 mm, and was light-cured for 20 seconds with a light curing unit. Light intensity was monitored with a radiometer (Model 100 Optilux Radiometer, SDS Kerr, Danbury, CT, USA) before each use.
Group 2, Short composite resin post with undercut. A mushroom-shaped undercut (1 × 0.7 mm) was prepared around the root canal walls about 3 mm below the cementenamel junction of the tooth. The undercut was made with a round bur (no. 4) while the bur was held parallel to the long axis of the tooth to prevent canal perforation.8 Before etching, each tooth was examined to rule out any teeth with lateral canal perforation. Then the tooth surfaces were etched and a thin layer of adhesive (Tetric N-Bond) was applied as in group 1. The canal and crown were constructed as in group 1.
Group 3, Glass fiber post + Resin cement group. The tooth surfaces were etched and a dual-cured adhesive (ExciTE F DSC, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied, thinned and cured for 10 seconds. A glass fiber post (everStick, StickTech Ltd., Turku, Finland) 1.5 mm in diameter was cut to a length of 6 mm to insert 3 mm inside the canal and leave the remaining 3 mm to reinforce the core. Placement of fiber post to a depth of 3 mm in the root canals did not interfere with normal root canal resorption.5,11,17,18 Fiber post length was measured with a scored probe and checked in the canal before cementation. The tweezers used to handle fiber posts and the operator's fingers never touched the fibers post. Two pastes (base and catalyst) of a dualcured resin cement (VariolinkII, Ivoclar Vivadent) were mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions, and the fiber post was coated with the mixture, and placed into the canal. Excess material was removed and the complex was cured for 60 seconds. Finally the crown was constructed as described above.
Group 4, Glass fiber post + Flowable composite resin group. All procedures were as described above for group 3 except that the glass fiber post was cemented with a flowable composite resin. After etching, applying the adhesive (Tetric N-Bond) and curing, a thin layer of flowable composite (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) was applied in the canal and the fiber post was inserted, fitted by finger pressure, and cured for 120 seconds to ensure polymerization of the composite inside the root canal. The crown was built as described above.
Group 5, Polyethylene fiber post + Resin cement group. The tooth surfaces were prepared as in group 1. A tape-shaped Ultra High Molecular Weight Polyethylene (UHMWPE) triaxial fiber (Ribbond, Seattle, WA, USA Triaxial) 3 mm in diameter was selected and manipulated according to the manufacturer's instructions. The length of the fiber post was the same as in groups 3 and 4. The fiber post was wetted with an unfilled resin (Resist, Biodental Technologies, Sydney, Australia) to increase adhesion between the fiber post and composite, and to facilitate handling. After excess resin was removed, the fiber post length was checked inside the canal and the fiber wetted with resin was cured for 10 second. Then the fiber post was coated with resin cement as in group 3. Finally the crown was built as described above.
Group 6, Polyethylene fiber post + Flowable composite group. The procedures were performed as described above for group 5 except that a flowable composite was used as the luting agent. The procedure for fiber post placement with flowable composite was the same as described above for group 4, and the crown was build as in the other five groups.
The composition of the materials and instructions for use are shown in Table 1.
A piece of orthodontic wire 2 mm in diameter and 12 cm length was cut and bent into a 5 - 6 mm long U shape using orthodontic pliers (No. 139). During crown reconstruction, the wire was embedded in the composite and covered with a layer of composite. This method is preferable to making holes in the polymerized composite with a bur, which may create a source of stress within the composite.17 It also provides better control of the position of the wire, and reduces damage to the core and post materials by the bur.
After all the samples were prepared, the teeth were placed in distilled water for one week at 37℃. Resistance to removal of the restoration was measured as tensile bond strength by placing the tooth in an Instron testing machine and twisting the free ends of the wires together. To apply tension, the mounted tooth was placed on the lower crosshead of a universal testing machine (Zwick-Roell, Zwic, Ulm, Germany), while upward force was applied through the wire by the upper part of the machine. The load (force) required to dislodge the restoration was measured at 1,000 N at a speed of 4 mm/min. The force was applied to the long axis of the tooth and increased in 0.1 g steps until the restoration was dislodged.
Under blind conditions, two observers examined the teeth under a digital microscope (Dino Lite, Taipei, Taiwan) at 25× magnification and recorded the types of bond failure as follows,
Consistency between the examiners was ensured by having them examine 10 dislodged teeth and comparing their ratings before the evaluation started.
Statistical analyses were done with one-way ANOVA to compare all subgroups and the Tukey test for paired comparisons. A p value of < 0.05 was considered significant.
Results
Statistical analysis with one-way ANOVA detected significant differences among all groups (p = 0.001). Table 2 shows the mean and standard deviation of retentive strength in all the groups. Post-hoc analysis with the Tukey test showed that the mean retentive strength in group 2 (undercut) was significantly higher than in group 1 (control, p = 0.030), group 3 (glass fiber post + resin cement, p = 0.001) and group 5 (polyethylene fiber post + resin cement, p = 0.008). However, the differences were not significant between group 2 and the other groups with a flowable composite as the luting agent (group 4, glass fiber post + flowable cement, p = 0.068; group 6, polyethylene fiber post + flowable cement, p = 0.557) (Table 2). The results of failure mode tests showed that cohesive failure was the most frequent in group 2. However, mean retentive strength was the highest in this group. In the groups with a fiber post-reinforced restoration (groups 3 - 6), adhesive bond failure was more frequent than cohesive fracture. Table 2 shows the frequencies of the different fracture modes in all 6 groups.
Discussion
Fracture and particularly dislodgment of tooth-colored restorations are the main causes of failure after the reconstruction of extensively damaged anterior primary teeth. Therefore better retention of the restoration is desirable, and evaluations of resistance to dislodgment with laboratory tests such as retentive strength are of interest to clinicians. Among the available tooth-colored materials, composite resin is a common choice for restoring anterior teeth due to its strength, resistance to wear and aesthetic results.2 Nevertheless, new materials and techniques may offer dentists alternative options for improving the results of treatment.
Intracanal posts have been used to increase crown restoration retention, especially when a significant part of the crown has been lost.21 Fiber-reinforced composite posts made of polyethylene and glass fiber provide the best aesthetic results and are widely used to restore permanent teeth. Ribbond polyethylene fiber increases the flexural characteristics of the composite resin, thus providing high fatigue resistance, preserving the architectural shape, and maintaining fiber orientation during application.19,20 Glass fiber posts such as everStick are also used to reinforce weakened roots without increasing the likelihood of root fracture. The flexible post is easy to handle and provides maximum support for the crown. In addition, the composition of the fiber post favors adhesion to the luting cement and composite core.22,25
In the current study, group 2, in which the mushroom-shaped undercut technique was used, had the highest mean retentive strength. This characteristic can contribute to both mechanical and micromechanical bonding to the tooth structure. The successful use of undercut techniques has been reported in previous studies, but the technique increases the risk of lateral root perforation and root weakening, especially in young children with thin dentinal root canal walls.8 Therefore the technique has been modified to incorporate a short composite resin post (as in group 1). This is a rapid and straightforward method.9 However, it obviates the problems of the undercut method, it provides less retention against crown dislodgment in straight anterior root canals.8,17 In the present study the crown reconstructions in group 1 (control) had lower retentive strength than in group 2, most likely because of providing mechanical retention in the undercut group.
Groups 4 and 6, which used fiber posts cemented with a flowable composite, also had higher retentive strength although the values were lower than in group 2 (undercut). This result may be related to the low viscosity of flowable composite resins and their good adaptation to root canal walls.29,30 However, during light-curing, polymerization shrinkage may occur toward the curing light, away from the dentinal wall, and toward the posts. Using dentin adhesives can reduce the contraction gap along the dentin-luting interface.31 In addition, inserting a fiber post helps the composite to resist pull-away toward the light source and thus improves marginal adaptation.29 Moreover, fiber posts used in associated with a flowable composite can modify interfacial stress, resulting in better integrity of the bonded interface.30
Despite the high polymerization shrinkage stress of flowable composite resins with an unfavorable configuration factor (C-factor), this appears not to compromise tensile bond strength. The low intrinsic rigidity of flowable composites enhances the stress-relieving behavior of these compounds.30 In agreement of our result, Gujjar et al. showed that the tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts was greater than composite posts or orthodontic wires when a flowable composite was used as the luting agent.17 However, according to Pithan et al. there were no significant differences in tensile bond strength between orthodontic wire, composite and glass fiber posts when they were cemented with a composite resin.18 The same results were obtained by Pinherio et al., who compared orthodontic wire, composite and dentin posts fixed with a dual cured adhesive material.7 The type of post, tooth and luting cement may explain the differences between our results and other studies.17
Some studies that used resin cement with a glass fiber post reported high bond strength in permanent teeth especially by using self cured adhesive and resin cement than light cure of them.23,25,26,32 Nevertheless, in the present study, Variolink II (groups 3 and 5) provided less resistance to crown dislodgment in comparison to the flowable luting agent (groups 4 and 6). This result may be due to the high viscosity of the cement, which may interfere with complete adaption of the post in the root canal.25,33 In addition, greater void formation may decrease the adhesion of these cements to the dentin. The presence of voids may result from mixing the two pastes of the cement, or from covering the post with cement before inserting the fiber post into the canal.23,34 When this is the case, using elongation tip to inject cement is recommended.27 With regard to the high C factor, there is no free area to provide relief from polymerization shrinkage. This phenomenon reduces bond strength between the cement and dentin and may lead to gaps at the cement-dentin interfaces.35 One of the potential limitations of the present study was the effect of variations in root canal size, which may affect luting agent thickness and therefore bond strength. Other factors that may influence the results include short working time, technical sensitivity and operator experience.25
In the present study, cohesive failures were mostly observed in groups 1 and 2, in which composite posts were used as the retainer. In contrast to other groups which used a fiber post for core reinforcement, adhesive failures were more frequent than cohesive failures because of the low bond strength between the luting cement and the dentin. This finding is in agreement with Gujiar et al. and Ayes et al., and suggests that the fiber post reinforces the core.17,23 The groups that used a composite post, only retention of the post inside the canal increased, with no gain in reinforcement of the core. As a result, the load applied during testing in groups 1 and 2 led to fracture of the crown mostly at the cervical margin (cohesive failure). Unfortunately, fracture and failure of this type of restoration are more difficult to repair than teeth that were restored with a fiber post. Our study shows that glass fiber posts were more resistant to fracture at the cervical margin. Glass fiber posts are easy to use, and unlike polyethylene fiber posts, they do not need to be impregnated with resin. Thus using a glass fiber post together with a flowable composite may be a potentially useful alternative for the restoration of primary teeth.
Our results show that the type of cement had a greater effect on retentive strength than the type of post. In agreement with our results, Braga et al. reported that the type of post did not affect the force needed to dislodge the core.36 Kim et al. concluded that the type of post did not affect fracture resistance or fracture level in restored permanent teeth.28 Moreover, Pithan et al. reported that the adhesion of the materials to dentinal root canal walls was more important than the type of post used as a retainer.18 Additional clinical studies are necessary to document the performance and success of different materials used to restore anterior primary teeth.
Conclusions
The mushroom-shaped undercut technique led to a significantly higher retentive strength than restorations prepared with a fiber post fixed with resin cement. Crowns reinforced with fiber posts showed adhesive failure more frequently than teeth reinforced only with a composite as the post and core. Restorations created with a glass fiber post cemented with a flowable composite can be considered as an alternative treatment for restoring anterior primary teeth due to its retentive strength and mode of fracture.
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to thank the Vice-Chancellory of Shiraz University of Medical Science, Shiraz, Iran, for supporting this research (Grant No. 90-3507). The authors also thank Dr. M. Vossoughi of the Dental Research Development Center in Shiraz Dental School for the statistical analysis and K. Shashok (AuthorAID in the Eastern Mediterranean) for help with the English in the manuscript. This manuscript reports research done in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the PhD degree awarded to one of the authors, Dr. M. Abbaszadeh.
- 1. Holan G, Rahme MA, Ram D. Parents' attitude toward their children's appearance in the case of esthetic defects of the anterior primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;34:141-145.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 2. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:511-516.PubMed
- 3. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:221-225.PubMed
- 4. Wanderley MT, Ferreira SL, Rodrigues CR, Rodrigues Filho LE. Primary anterior tooth restoration using posts with macroretentive elements. Quintessence Int 1999;30:432-436.PubMed
- 5. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28:187-192.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 6. Grewal N, Seth R. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26:141-148.ArticlePubMed
- 7. Pinheiro SL, Bönecker MJ, Duarte DA, Imparato JC, Oda M. Bond strength analysis of intracanal posts used in anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006;31:32-34.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 8. Judd PL, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Yacobi R. Composite resin short-post technique for primary anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:553-555.ArticlePubMed
- 9. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, Wanderley MT, Correa MS. Resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int 2004;35:689-692.PubMed
- 10. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:e60-e64.ArticlePubMed
- 11. Memarpour M, Shafiei F. Restoration of primary anterior teeth using intracanal polyethylene fibers and composite: an in vivo study. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:85-91.PubMed
- 12. Island G, White GE. Polyethylene ribbon fibers: a new alternative for restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:151-156.PubMed
- 13. Jain M, Singla S, Bhushan B, Kumar S, Bhushan A. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior primary teeth using polyethylene fiber with two different approaches. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29:327-332.ArticlePubMed
- 14. Motisuki C, Santos-Pinto L, Giro EM. Restoration of severely decayed primary incisors using indirect composite resin restoration technique. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:282-286.ArticlePubMed
- 15. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Sunny R. Glass fiber reinforced composite resin as an intracanal post-a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32:207-210.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 16. Metha D, Gulati A, Basappa N, Raju OS. Esthetic rehabilitation of severely decayed primary incisors using glass fiber reinforced composite: a case report. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012;79:22-25.PubMed
- 17. Gujjar KR, Indushekar KR. Comparison of the retentive strength of 3 different posts in restoring badly broken primary maxillary incisors. J Dent Child (Chic) 2010;77:17-24.PubMed
- 18. Pithan S, Vieira Rde S, Chain MC. Tensile bond strength of intracanal posts in primary anterior teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;27:35-39.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 19. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Reconstruction of nonvital teeth using direct fiber-reinforced composite resin: a pilot clinical study. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:71-78.PubMed
- 20. Karbhari VM, Wang Q. Influence of triaxial braid denier on ribbon-based fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:969-976.ArticlePubMed
- 21. Qualtrough AJ, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Oper Dent 2003;28:86-91.PubMed
- 22. El-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, Eltanty A, Abbasi K, Habib N. Gingival microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent 2007;32:298-305.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 23. Kececi AD, Ureyen Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro push-out bond strengths of four fiber-reinforced composite post systems and 2 luting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:121-128.ArticlePubMed
- 24. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation modes. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:257-262.ArticlePubMed
- 25. Bonfante G, Kaizer OB, Pegoraro LF, do Valle AL. Tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts luted with different cements. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:159-164.ArticlePubMed
- 26. Sen D, Poyrazoglu E, Tuncelli B. The retentive effects of pre-fabricated posts by luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:585-589.ArticlePubMed
- 27. Kim SR, Yum J, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of push-out bond strength of post according to cement application methods. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010;35:479-485.Article
- 28. Kim JH, Park SH, Park JW, Jung IY. Influence of post types and sizes on fracture resistance in the immature tooth model. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010;35:257-266.Article
- 29. Ozel E, Soyman M. Effect of fiber nets, application techniques and flowable composites on microleakage and the effect of fiber nets on polymerization shrinkage in class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009;34:174-180.PubMed
- 30. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001;26:60-69.PubMed
- 31. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as 'filled adhesives': literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249-257.PubMed
- 32. Kim MH, Kim HJ, Cho YG. Effect of curing methods of resin cements on bond strength and adhesive interface of post. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2009;34:103-112.Article
- 33. Kimmel SS. Restoration and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth with a polyethylene ribbon and prefabricated fiberglass post. Gen Dent 2000;48:700-706.PubMed
- 34. Mannocci F, Innocenti M, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Confocal and scanning electron microscopic study of teeth restored with fiber posts, metal posts, and composite resins. J Endod 1999;25:789-794.ArticlePubMed
- 35. Deliperi S. Direct fiber-reinforced composite restoration in an endodontically-treated molar: a three-year case report. Oper Dent 2008;33:209-214.ArticlePubMedPDF
- 36. Braga NM, Paulino SM, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Vansan LP. Removal resistance of glass-fiber and metallic cast posts with different lengths. J Oral Sci 2006;48:15-20.ArticlePubMed
REFERENCES
Tables & Figures
REFERENCES
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by 
- Evaluation of fracture resistance of three types of post utilized in restoration of root canal treated primary anterior teeth (an in-vitro study)
Doaa K. Hassan, Nagwa A. Ghoname, Arafa M. Khatab, Samy M. El Safty, Nahed S. Shoker
Tanta Dental Journal.2025; 22(1): 172. CrossRef - Mechanical Properties and Clinical Success of Intracanal Posts in Primary Maxillary Anterior Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Selvakumar Haridoss, MS Muthu, Kavitha Swaminathan, Yamuna Shanmugam, Aksshaya Raghu, Krishnapillai Chandrababu Vignesh, Sunil Babu Kotha
International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry.2024; 16(S3): S293. CrossRef - Comparison of shear bond strength of different types of intracanal posts in restoring extensively damaged primary anterior teeth
Shabnam Asghari Mollabashi, Shima Nourmohamadi, Afrooz Nakhostin
Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects.2024; 18(2): 95. CrossRef - Effects of glass fibers reinforced and non-reinforced composite resin on fracture behavior of severely destructed primary incisors and restored with post and core system
Rizk El Agamy
The Saudi Dental Journal.2024; 36(3): 451. CrossRef - Evaluation of the Effects of Different Types of Resin Cement Systems on the Push-Out Bond Strength of the Fiber Post to Intracanal Dentin in Anterior Primary Teeth
Ali Nozari, Boshra Rasoolzade, Zahra Jowkar, Seyed Ahmadreza Hamidi, Mohammad Jowkar, Murilo Baena Lopes
International Journal of Dentistry.2023; 2023: 1. CrossRef - Comparison of the Pull-Out Resistance of Grossly Decayed Primary Anterior Teeth Restored With Two Different Intracanal Posts: An In Vitro Study
Ayham Hijaz, Mohamed K Altinawi, Imad Katbeh, Eyad Gergos, Gharawi Alhamzah
Cureus.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Comparison of fracture resistance of primary incisor teeth restored with glass fiber post and reversed-oriented metal post – an in vitro study
Hamideh Barghi, Samira Sharifi
Dental Research Journal.2023;[Epub] CrossRef - Clinical and radiographic comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of restoring destroyed primary incisors using two different techniques—A pilot study
Seba Ibrahim, Abdul Wahab Nourallah
Clinical and Experimental Dental Research.2020; 6(5): 537. CrossRef - Coronal Microleakage of Teeth Restored with Cast Posts and Cores Cemented with Four Different Luting Agents after Thermocycling
Maryam Mohajerfar, Kaveh Nadizadeh, Tabasom Hooshmand, Elaheh Beyabanaki, Hamid Neshandar Asli, Siamak Sabour
Journal of Prosthodontics.2019;[Epub] CrossRef - Evaluation of the effect of different post materials and adhesive systems on the bonding strength of short‐post technique for primary teeth
Nihal Beldüz Kara, Tunahan Kanyilmaz, Soner Çankaya, Cankat Kara
International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry.2018; 28(2): 239. CrossRef - Effect of ultrasonic tip designs on intraradicular post removal
Anny Carine Barros Aguiar, Daniely Amorim de Meireles, André Augusto Franco Marques, Emílio Carlos Sponchiado Júnior, Angela Delfina Bitencourt Garrido, Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics.2014; 39(4): 265. CrossRef
ePub Link
Cite
XML DownloadRetentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study
Retentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study
Materials and application procedures used in this study
HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol-A-diglycidyl methacrylate; TEGDMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; PMMA, polymethylmethacrylate.
Mean tensile bond strength of experimental groups (Unit, MPa; n = 20) and frequency of failure modes of fractures in each group
Table 1 Materials and application procedures used in this study
HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol-A-diglycidyl methacrylate; TEGDMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; PMMA, polymethylmethacrylate.
Table 2 Mean tensile bond strength of experimental groups (Unit, MPa; n = 20) and frequency of failure modes of fractures in each group
