The Journal of Advanced Prosthodontics

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effect of ferrule on the fracture resistance of mandibular premolars with prefabricated posts and cores

  • Kim, Ae-Ra (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Lim, Hyun-Pil (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Yang, Hong-So (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University) ;
  • Park, Sang-Won (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University)
  • Received : 2016.10.19
  • Accepted : 2017.08.29
  • Published : 2017.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSE. This study evaluated fracture resistance with regard to ferrule lengths and post reinforcement on endodontically treated mandibular premolars incorporating a prefabricated post and resin core. MATERIALS AND METHODS. One hundred extracted mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 5 groups (n=20): intact teeth (NR); endodontically treated teeth (ETT) without post (NP); ETT restored with a prefabricated post with ferrule lengths of either 0 mm (F0), 1 mm (F1), or 2 mm (F2). Prepared teeth were restored with metal crowns. A thermal cycling test was performed for 1,000 cycles. Loading was applied at an angle of 135 degrees to the axis of the tooth using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 2.54 mm/min. Fracture loads were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test using a statistical program (${\alpha}=.05$). RESULTS. There were statistical differences in fracture loads among groups (P<.001). The fracture load of F2 ($237.7{\pm}83.4$) was significantly higher than those of NP ($155.6{\pm}74.3N$), F0 ($98.8{\pm}43.3N$), and F1 ($152.8{\pm}78.5N$) (P=.011, P<.001, and P=.008, respectively). CONCLUSION. Fracture resistance of ETT depends on the length of the ferrule, as shown by the significantly increased fracture resistance in the 2 mm ferrule group (F2) compared to the groups with shorter ferrule lengths (F0, F1) and without post (NP).

Keywords

References

  1. Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010;36:609-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.002
  2. Al-Omiri MK, Mahmoud AA, Rayyan MR, Abu-Hammad O. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with post-retained restorations: an overview. J Endod 2010;36:1439-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.06.005
  3. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:355-63.
  4. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001
  5. Mangold JT, Kern M. Influence of glass-fiber posts on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated premolars with varying substance loss: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:387-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(11)60080-2
  6. Stankiewicz NR, Wilson PR. The ferrule effect: a literature review. Int Endod J 2002;35:575-81. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00557.x
  7. Tamse A, Fuss Z, Lustig J, Kaplavi J. An evaluation of endodontically treated vertically fractured teeth. J Endod 1999; 25:506-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80292-1
  8. McLaren JD, McLaren CI, Yaman P, Bin-Shuwaish MS, Dennison JD, McDonald NJ. The effect of post type and length on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:174-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60024-X
  9. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22:477-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.017
  10. Buttel L, Krastl G, Lorch H, Naumann M, Zitzmann NU, Weiger R. Influence of post fit and post length on fracture resistance. Int Endod J 2009;42:47-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01492.x
  11. Pereira JR, Valle AL, Ghizoni JS, So MV, Ramos MB, Lorenzoni FC. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of four luting agents and SEM observation of the dentine/fibreglass bond interface. Int Endod J 2013;46:982-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12089
  12. Ibrahim AM, Richards LC, Berekally TL. Effect of remaining tooth structure on the fracture resistance of endodonticallytreated maxillary premolars: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2016;115:290-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.08.013
  13. Pereira JR, de Ornelas F, Conti PC, do Valle AL. Effect of a crown ferrule on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:50-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.10.019
  14. Samran A, El Bahra S, Kern M. The influence of substance loss and ferrule height on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars. An in vitro study. Dent Mater 2013; 29:1280-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.10.003
  15. Forberger N, Gohring TN. Influence of the type of post and core on in vitro marginal continuity, fracture resistance, and fracture mode of lithia disilicate-based all-ceramic crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:264-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60205-X
  16. Gegauff AG. Effect of crown lengthening and ferrule placement on static load failure of cemented cast post-cores and crowns. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:169-79. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2000.107583
  17. Zhi-Yue L, Yu-Xing Z. Effects of post-core design and ferrule on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:368-73. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2003.73
  18. Salameh Z, Ounsi HF, Aboushelib MN, Sadig W, Ferrari M. Fracture resistance and failure patterns of endodontically treated mandibular molars with and without glass fiber post in combination with a zirconia-ceramic crown. J Dent 2008; 36:513-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2008.03.014
  19. Cagidiaco MC, Garcia-Godoy F, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Placement of fiber prefabricated or custom made posts affects the 3-year survival of endodontically treated premolars. Am J Dent 2008;21:179-84.
  20. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:780-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90376-7
  21. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1990; 63:529-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(90)90070-S
  22. Fokkinga WA, Le Bell AM, Kreulen CM, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. Ex vivo fracture resistance of direct resin composite complete crowns with and without posts on maxillary premolars. Int Endod J 2005;38:230-7. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00941.x
  23. 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;35:1428-32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.07.010
  24. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in-vitro study. J Dent 2001;29:427-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(01)00038-0
  25. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:39-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90328-7
  26. Hoag EP, Dwyer TG. A comparative evaluation of three post and core techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:177-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(82)90183-4
  27. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:108-11. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1985.tb00571.x
  28. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post systems: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:380-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(99)80002-X
  29. Torbjorner A, Fransson B. A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:369-76.
  30. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC. Retention of endodontic dowels: effects of cement, dowel length, diameter, and design. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:400-5.
  31. Ruemping DR, Lund MR, Schnell RJ. Retention of dowels subjected to tensile and torsional forces. J Prosthet Dent 1979;41:159-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90300-7
  32. Sherfudhin H, Hobeich J, Carvalho CA, Aboushelib MN, Sadig W, Salameh Z. Effect of different ferrule designs on the fracture resistance and failure pattern of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and all-ceramic crowns. J Appl Oral Sci 2011;19:28-33. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572011000100007
  33. Ng CC, Dumbrigue HB, Al-Bayat MI, Griggs JA, Wakefield CW. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:290-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.02.026
  34. Aykent F, Kalkan M, Yucel MT, Ozyesil AG. Effect of dentin bonding and ferrule preparation on the fracture strength of crowned teeth restored with dowels and amalgam cores. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:297-301. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.02.025
  35. Arunpraditkul S, Saengsanon S, Pakviwat W. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: three walls versus four walls of remaining coronal tooth structure. J Prosthodont 2009;18:49-53. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2008.00375.x
  36. Akkayan B. An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule length on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced and zirconia dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:155-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.04.027
  37. Wagnild G, Mueller K. Pathways of the pulp. In: Cohen S, Burns R, eds. The restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. 8th ed. St. Louis; Mosby; 2002. p. 765-94
  38. Tan PL, Aquilino SA, Gratton DG, Stanford CM, Tan SC, Johnson WT, Dawson D. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated central incisors with varying ferrule heights and configurations. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:331-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.01.013
  39. Santos-Filho PC, Verissimo C, Soares PV, Saltarelo RC, Soares CJ, Marcondes Martins LR. Influence of ferrule, post system, and length on biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated anterior teeth. J Endod 2014;40:119-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.09.034
  40. Torbjorner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995; 73:439-44. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(05)80072-1
  41. Samran A, Al-Afandi M, Kadour JA, Kern M. Effect of ferrule location on the fracture resistance of crowned mandibular premolars: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114:86-91. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.12.014
  42. Lindemuth JS, Hagge MS, Broome JS. Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 2000;25:177-81.
  43. Gorucu J, Ozgunaltay G. Fracture resistance of teeth with Class II bonded amalgam and new tooth-colored restorations. Oper Dent 2003;28:501-7.
  44. Barcellos RR, Correia DP, Farina AP, Mesquita MF, Ferraz CC, Cecchin D. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with intra-radicular post: the effects of post system and dentine thickness. J Biomech 2013;46:2572-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.016
  45. Wegner PK, Freitag S, Kern M. Survival rate of endodontically treated teeth with posts after prosthetic restoration. J Endod 2006;32:928-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.06.001
  46. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Endodontically treated teeth as abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1985;53:631-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(85)90008-3
  47. Reynolds JM. Abutment selection for fixed prosthodontics. J Prosthet Dent 1968;19:483-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(68)90064-4