Retention of three endodontic posts cemented with adhesive resin cement

Abstract

ABSTRACT
Background: An extensive review of published articles has revealed a wide divergence of opinions regarding the suitability of different post systems for endodontically treated teeth. As a result the dentist has no clear guidelines concerning the selection of suitable post systems that will provide adequate retention while minimizing subsequent root fracture. This invitro study formulated to compare the retentive abilities of three different post systems (Euro post, Easy post, custom cast post) using adhesive resin cement.
Materials and methods: Twenty four intact human mandibular second premolars were selected for this study. These samples were endodonticlly treated, and randomly divided in to three groups of eight teeth each:
Group Ι: teeth restored with Euro post (prefabricated parallel sided stainless steel/ serrated posts).Group ΙΙ: teeth restored with custom cast posts design. Group ΙΙΙ: teeth restored with Easy post (prefabricated fiber reinforced composite post/smooth/tapered). Tensile failure loads were measured in the absence of crowns using an instron test machine at across head speed of 5 mm/min. Values were recorded in Newton .Mean values and standard deviations were analyzed with one way ANOVA test and the least significant differences test.
Results: Retentive failure loads were recorded for all test specimens; the means and standard deviation for each group were as follows: group Ι: 189±68.9; group ΙΙ:79.13 ±17.80and groupΙΙΙ:65.75±23.61.
Conclusion: Endodontically treated teeth restored with Euro post (stainless steel/parallel sided /serrated posts) showed significantly greater retentive forces than teeth restored with cast post and Easy post "fiber reinforced posts (tapered design)", also the difference in the mean retentive failure values between specimens restored with cast post and Easy post was not statistically significant.
Key words: Euro post, fiber reinforced posts, cast post, retention. (J Bagh Coll Dentistry 2008; 20(2)9-13)