Randomized clinical study comparing metallic and glass fiber post in restoration of endodontically treated teeth

Рандомизированное клиническое исследование по сравнению металлических и стекловолоконных штифтов при восстановлении эндодонтически леченных зубов
OlaideS Gbadebo, DeborahM Ajayi, OyekunleO Dosumu Oyekunle, PeterO Shaba
2014-01-01

endodontically treated teethglass fiber-reinforced postsmetallic postspost-retained crownsrandomized clinical study
BACKGROUND: Post-retained crowns are indicated for endodontically treated teeth (ETT) with severely damaged coronal tissue. Metallic custom and prefabricated posts have been used over the years, however, due to unacceptable color, extreme rigidity and corrosion, fiber posts, which are flexible, aesthetically pleasing and have modulus of elasticity comparable with dentin were introduced. AIM: To compare clinical performance of metallic and glass fiber posts in restoration of ETT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 40 ETT requiring post retained restorations were included. These teeth were randomly allocated into 2 groups. Twenty teeth were restored using a glass fiber-reinforced post (FRP) and 20 others received stainless steel parapost (PP), each in combination with composite core buildups. Patients were observed at 1 and 6 months after post placement and cementation of porcelain fused to metal (PFM) crown. Marginal gap consideration, post retention, post fracture, root fracture, crown fracture, crown decementation and loss of restoration were part of the data recorded. All teeth were assessed clinically and radiographically. Fisher's exact test was used for categorical values while log-rank test was used for descriptive statistical analysis. RESULTS: One tooth in the PP group failed, secondary to decementation of the PFM crown giving a 2.5% overall failure while none in the FRP group failed. The survival rate of FRP was thus 100% while it was 97.5% in the PP group. This however was not statistically significant (log-rank test, P = 0.32). CONCLUSION: Glass FRPs performed better than the metallic post based on short-term clinical performance.
1
A randomized clinical study compared glass fiber-reinforced posts with stainless steel paraposts in 40 endodontically treated teeth requiring post-retained restorations.
2
After six months, one stainless steel post restoration failed because of crown decementation, whereas no glass fiber post restoration failed.
3
Glass fiber posts showed better short-term clinical performance than metallic posts in this study.
4
Short-term survival was 100% for glass fiber posts versus 97.5% for stainless steel posts, although the difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.32).
5
Twenty teeth received glass fiber posts and 20 received stainless steel posts, both combined with composite core buildups and porcelain-fused-to-metal crowns.

Endodontically treated teeth restored with metallic stainless steel or glass fiber-reinforced posts and post-retained crowns

Short-term clinical performance, survival, retention, and restoration-related complications of metallic versus glass fiber posts

Publication Details
Publication Date
2014-01-01
Journal
Publisher
ISSN
Access Type
Author Information
Authors
OlaideS Gbadebo
DeborahM Ajayi
OyekunleO Dosumu Oyekunle
PeterO Shaba
Explore further
Open the scid.ai AI chat with a ready-made request: it will find papers on a similar topic and help build a literature review.
Find similar papers in the chat
Make a presentation
100%