Dental Materials
Volume 23, Issue 2 , Pages 138-144, February 2007

Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts

  • Michael Naumann

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics and Geriatric Dentistry, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author at: Department of Prosthodontics and Geriatric Dentistry, Augustenburger Platz 1, D-13353 Berlin, Germany. Tel.: +49 30 450 562 577; fax: +49 30 450 562 900.
    • ,
  • Anja Preuss

      Affiliations

    • Department of Prosthodontics and Geriatric Dentistry, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
    • ,
  • Roland Frankenberger

      Affiliations

    • Dental Clinic 1, Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany

Received 25 August 2005; accepted 3 January 2006.

Abstract 

Objective

The aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of the rigidity of different post materials (titanium versus glass fiber reinforced composite [FRC]) on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth (ETT).

Method

Forty-eight caries-free maxillary central incisors were randomly assigned to six groups (n=8). After endodontic treatment, teeth of four groups were flattened 2mm above and two groups at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). As control, specimens of one group received neither composite build-up nor post, and teeth were left empty (E). In another group only a resin composite build-up was placed (C). In two groups, both titanium and FRC posts were inserted. One group with titanium (2/T) and FRC (2/FRC) post received a 2mm deep ferrule preparation. For one group with titanium (0/T) and FRC (0/FRC) post no ferrule design was provided. All-ceramic crowns were adhesively luted on all specimens. Specimens were exposed to thermomechanical loading and finally statically loaded until failure.

Results

The median fracture load values (min–max) were: E=317 (242–404); C=387 (335–475); 0/FRC=352 (0–440); 2/FRC=502 (326–561); 0/T=420 (0–548), 2/T=517 (416–653). Statistically significant differences were computed between E, C, 2/FRC, 0/T and 2/T; between C, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/FRC, 2/FRC and 2/T; between 0/T and 2/T regarding maximum fracture load.

Significance

Fracture resistance of ETT is not influenced by the rigidity of the post material. The combination of ferrule preparation and endodontic post results in higher load resistance after TML than any other build-up design.

Keywords: Fracture load, Endodontic post, Ferrule, Dowel

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 31.50 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0109-5641(06)00006-6

doi:10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.002

Dental Materials
Volume 23, Issue 2 , Pages 138-144, February 2007

Article Tools

* Image Usage & Resolution