An in vitro study of resistance to vertical fracture in restored teeth of four types of post and core systems

Document Type : Original Article


1 Departmant Faculty of Dentistry, Ahvaz Jundishapur University of Medical Sciences, Ahvaz, Iran.

2 Dentist


Background and Objective: Endodontically treated teeth with extensive loss of coronal structure can be restored with various post systems. Choosing a right type of post will affect the life of the final restoration. The aim of study was to investigate the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored using a suggestive and three conventional post systems.
Subjects and Methods: Forty extracted and endodontically treated premolars were decoronated 1 mm coronal to CEJ. the teeth were randomly divided into four restorative groups: Group 1, cast post and core; 2, fiber post and composite core; 3, suggestive
stainless steel post and composite core; 4, titanium post and composite core. In all groups, posts were cemented with a resin cement (Panavia F). Each root was embedded in an acrylic resin block and loaded vertically in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until fracture. The data were recorded and analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests.
Results: The teeth restored with cast post and core demonstrated fracture resistance (162 N) significantly higher than other groups (P<0.001). The fracture resistance in fiber glass post group (133 N) was significantly higher than that in stainless steel and titanium post groups (P<0.001). The difference of fracture resistance between stainless steel post group (102 N) and titanium post group (90 N) was not significant (P=0.28).       
Conclusion: The results of study indicated that endodontically treated premolars restored with cast or fiber glass post systems are more resistant to fracture compared to stainless steel and titanium posts.


1-Toksavul S, Zor M, Toman M, Güngör MA, Nergiz I, Artunc C. Analysis of dentinal sress distribution of  maxillary central incisors subjected to various post-and-core applications. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):89-96.
2-Samimi P, Fathpour K. Adhesion in dentistry. Esfahan: Mani Pub.; 2002. P. 245-59.
3-Hunt PR, Gogarnoiu D. Evoluation of post and core systems. J Esthet Dent 1996;8(2):74-83.
4-Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46(2):367-84.
5-Eskitascioglu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis. J Endod 2002;28(9):629-33.
6-Ukon S, Moroi H, Okimoto K, Fujita M, Ishikava M, Terada Y, et al. Influence of different elastic moduli of dowel and core on stress distribution on root. Dent Mater J 2000;19(1):50-64.   
7-Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52(1):28-35.
8-Chan FW, Harcourt JK, Brockhurst PJ. The effect of post adaptation in the root canal on retention of posts cemented with various cements. Aust Dent J 1993;38(1):39-45. 
9-Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010;36(4):609-17.
10-Hatta M, Shinya A, Vallittu PK, Shinya A, Lassila LV. High volume individual fiber post versus low volume fiber post: the fracture load of the restored tooth. J Dent 2011;39(1):65-71.
11-Fragou T, Dimttrios T, Eleana K. The effect of ferrule on the fracture mode of the endodontically treated canines restored with fiber posts and metal ceramic or all ceramic crowns. J Dent 2012;40:276-85.
12-Ersöz E. Evaluation of stresses caused by dentin pin with finite elements stress analysis method. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27(9):769-73.
13-Summitt JB, Robbins JW, Schwartz RS. Fundamentals of operative dentistry. 2nd ed.  Chicago: Quintessence Pub.; 2001. P. 519-36.
14-Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:15B-18.
15-Qualtrough AJ, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Oper Dent 2003;28(1):86-91.
16-Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post systems: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(4):380-5.
17-Pierrisnard L, Bohin F, Renault P, Barquints M. Corono-radicular reconstruction of pulpless teeth: A mechanical study using finite element analysis. J Prothet Dent 2002; 88: 442-8.
18-Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Fracture resistance of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22(5):477-85.
19-Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Scotti R, Naert I. Effect of ferrule and post placement on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth after fatigue loading. J Dent2012;41(3):207-15.
20-Sendhilnathan D, Nayar S. The effect of post-core and ferrule on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. Indian J Dent Res 2008;19(1):17-21.
21-Nakamura T, Ohyama T, Waki T, Kinuta S, Wakabayashi K, Mutobe Y, et al. Stress analysis of endodontically treated teedth restored with different types of post material. Dent Mater J 2006;25(1):145-50.
22-Gu XH, Huang JP, Wang XX. [An experimental study on fracture resistance of metal-ceramic crowned incisors with different post-core systems]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;42(3):169-72. [In Chinese]
23-Nissan J, Parson A, Barnea E, Shifman A, Assif D. Resistance to fracture of crowned endodontically treated premolars restored with ceramic and metal post systems. Quintessence Int 2007;38(2):e120-3.
24-Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81(3):262-9.
25-Meng QF, Chen YM, Guang HB, Yip KH, Smales RJ. Effect of a ferrule and increased clinical crown length on the in vitro fracture resistance of premolars restored using two dowel-and-core systems. Oper Dent 2007;32(6):595-601.
26-Qing H, Zhu Z, Chao Y, Zhang W. In vitro evaluation of the fracture resistance of anterior endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fiber and zircon posts. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97(2):93-8.
27-Qualtrough AJ, Chandler NP, Purton DG. A comparison of the retention of tooth-colored posts. Quintessence Int 2003;34(3):199-201.
28-Prisco D, De Santis D, Mollica F, Ambrosio L, Rengo S, Nicolais L. Fiber post adhesion to resin luting cements in the restoration of endodontically-treated teeth. Oper Dent 2003;28(5):515-21.
29-Yang Z, Hou YF, Pan XB. [Fracture resistance and failure modes of endodontically treated human teeth restored with four different post-core systems]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2008;26(6):633-5,9. [In Chinese]
30-Giovani AR, Vansan LP, de Sousa Neto MD, Paulino SM. In vitro fracture resistance of glass-fiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101(3):183-8.
31-Zalkind M, Hochman N. Esthetic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth with post and cores. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79(6):702-5.
32-Akkayan B, Gülmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):431-7.
33-Abdul Salam SN, Banerjee A, Mannocci F, Pilecki P, Watson TF. Cyclic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with glass fibre and titanium alloy posts: fracture resistance and failure modes. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent 2006;14(3):98-104.
34-Hayashi M, Sugeta A, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Static and fatigue fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with post-cores. Dent Mater 2008;24(9):1178-86.
35-Hajizadeh H, Namazikhah MS, Moghaddas MJ, Ghavamnasiri M, Majidinia S. Effect of posts on the fracture resistance of load-cycled endodontically-treated premolars restored with direct composite resin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2009;10(3):10-7.
36-Kivanç BH, Görgül G. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different post systems using new-generation adhesives. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9(7):33-40.
37-Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71(6):565-7.
38-Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27(4):275-8.
39-Mendoza DB, Eakle WS, Kahl EA, Ho R. Root reinforcement with a resin-bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78(1):10-4.
40-Mattos CM, Las Casas EB, Dutra IG, Sousa HA, Guerra SM. Numerical analysis of the biomechanical behaviour of a weakened root after adhesive reconstruction and post–core rehabilitation. J Dent 2012;40(5):423-32.
41-Silva NR, Castro CG, Santos-Filho PC, Silva GR, Campos RE, Soares PV, et al. Influence of different post design and composition on stress distribution in maxillary central incisor: Finite element analysis. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(2):153-8.
42-Barjau-Escribano A, Sancho-Bru JL, Forner-Navarro L, Rodríguez-Cervantes PJ, Pérez-Gónzález A, Sánchez-Marín FT. Imfluence of prefabricated post material on restoration teeth: fracture strength and stress distribution. Oper Dent 2006;31(1):47-54.
43-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(3):174-82.
44-Fredriksson M, Astbäck J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80(2):151-7.