Impact of endodontic post material on longitudinal changes in interproximal bone level: a randomized controlled pilot trial

  • Manja von Stein-LausnitzEmail author
  • Axel von Stein-Lausnitz
  • Daniel R. Reissmann
  • Matthias J. Roggendorf
  • Florian Beuer
  • Michael Naumann
  • Guido Sterzenbach
Original Article



Aim was to evaluate the impact of glass fiber versus titanium endodontic posts on the interproximal bone level around severely damaged endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and methods

Thirty-eight participants of a randomized controlled trial on glass fiber (n = 18) and titanium post-endodontic restorations (n = 20) received radiographs at two different times after post placement (T0 = <12 months and T1 = 36–72 months after post placement). A total of 76 radiographs were analyzed with an image-editing software. Medians of changes in mesial and distal interproximal bone level (∆MBL, ∆DBL) were calculated and tested for statistical significance with respect to post material using Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.05). Impact of post material on bone level changes was assessed in multilevel mixed-effect linear regression models.


The mean observation period was 54 months for glass fiber and 50 months for titanium posts. Interproximal bone loss was small in both groups during the study period with no significant differences between groups (glass-fiber group, ∆MBL = − 0.03 mm and ∆DBL = − 0.06 mm; titanium group, ∆MBL = − 0.07 mm and ∆DBL = − 0.17 mm; both p > 0.05). Overall, impact of post material on bone loss was almost negligible with a nonsignificant difference between materials of 0.10 mm during the entire study period.


The rigidity of endodontic post material has no impact on the level of alveolar bone support of severely damaged endodontically treated teeth.

Clinical relevance

Post-endodontic restorations of severely damaged teeth can achieve steady levels of periodontal bone support as a parameter of periodontal health, irrespective of post material.


Adhesively luted post Bone loss Glass-fiber post Interproximal bone level Post-endodontic restoration Titanium post 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article contains a study with human participants performed by the authors. The number of the approval of the ethics committee is No. NCT01520766.

Informed consent

For this type of study, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.


  1. 1.
    Sarkis-Onofre R, Jacinto RC, Boscato N, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T (2014) Cast metal vs. glass fibre posts: a randomized controlled trial with up to 3 years of follow up. J Dent 42(5):582–587. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Debels E, Lesaffre E, Naert I (2011) An up to 3-year controlled clinical trial comparing the outcome of glass fiber posts and composite cores with gold alloy-based posts and cores for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont 24(4):363–372PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gomez-Polo M, Llido B, Rivero A, Del Rio J, Celemin A (2010) A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores. J Dent 38(11):916–920. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Naumann M, Koelpin M, Beuer F, Meyer-Lueckel H (2012) 10-year survival evaluation for glass-fiber-supported postendodontic restoration: a prospective observational clinical study. J Endod 38(4):432–435. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Dietrich T, Bitter K, Frankenberger R, von Stein-Lausnitz M (2017) Dentin-like versus rigid endodontic post: 11-year randomized controlled pilot trial on no-wall to 2-wall defects. J Endod 43(11):1770–1775. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jung RE, Kalkstein O, Sailer I, Roos M, Hammerle CH (2007) A comparison of composite post buildups and cast gold post-and-core buildups for the restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10 years. Int J Prosthodont 20(1):63–69PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Figueiredo FE, Martins-Filho PR, Faria ESAL (2015) Do metal post-retained restorations result in more root fractures than fiber post-retained restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 41(3):309–316. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorrentino R, Di Mauro MI, Ferrari M, Leone R, Zarone F (2016) Complications of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and single crowns or fixed dental prostheses-a systematic review. Clin Oral Investig 20(7):1449–1457. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Balto K (2011) Root-filled teeth with adequate restorations and root canal treatment have better treatment outcomes. Evid Based Dent 12(3):72–73. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gillen BM, Looney SW, Gu LS, Loushine BA, Weller RN, Loushine RJ, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2011) Impact of the quality of coronal restoration versus the quality of root canal fillings on success of root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 37(7):895–902. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGuire MK, Nunn ME (1996) Prognosis versus actual outcome. III. The effectiveness of clinical parameters in accurately predicting tooth survival. J Periodontol 67(7):666–674. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Arvidson K, Cottler-Fox M, Friberg U (1980) Effects of dental root posts on human gingival fibroblasts in vitro. J Dent Res 59(3):651–656. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Eliasson S, Bergstrom J, Sanda A (1995) Periodontal bone loss of teeth with metal posts. A radiographic study. J Clin Periodontol 22(11):850–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Timmerman MF, Van der Weijden GA (2006) Bone level around endodontically treated teeth in periodontitis patients. J Clin Periodontol 33(9):620–625. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Katsamakis S, Timmerman M, Van der Velden U, de Cleen M, Van der Weijden F (2009) Patterns of bone loss around teeth restored with endodontic posts. J Clin Periodontol 36(11):940–949. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Coelho CS, Biffi JC, Silva GR, Abrahao A, Campos RE, Soares CJ (2009) Finite element analysis of weakened roots restored with composite resin and posts. Dent Mater J 28(6):671–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lassila LV, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, Narva K, Vallittu PK (2004) Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 20(1):29–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zicari F, Coutinho E, Scotti R, Van Meerbeek B, Naert I (2013) Mechanical properties and micro-morphology of fiber posts. Dent Mater 29(4):e45–e52. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hirschfeld Z, Stern N (1972) Post and core--the biomechanical aspect. Aust Dent J 17(6):467–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thresher RW, Saito GE (1973) The stress analysis of human teeth. J Biomech 6(5):443–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Reinhardt RA, Krejci RF, Pao YC, Stannard JG (1983) Dentin stresses in post-reconstructed teeth with diminishing bone support. J Dent Res 62(9):1002–1008. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sterzenbach G, Franke A, Naumann M (2012) Rigid versus flexible dentine-like endodontic posts-clinical testing of a biomechanical concept: seven-year results of a randomized controlled clinical pilot trial on endodontically treated abutment teeth with severe hard tissue loss. J Endod 38(12):1557–1563. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    D'Agostino RB, Belanger A, Ralph B, D’Agostino RB Jr (1990) A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. Am Stat 44:316–321Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Romeo E, Lops D, Margutti E, Ghisolfi M, Chiapasco M, Vogel G (2004) Long-term survival and success of oral implants in the treatment of full and partial arches: a 7-year prospective study with the ITI dental implant system. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(2):247–259PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Taylor RC, McGlumphy EA, Tatakis DN, Beck FM (2004) Radiographic and clinical evaluation of single-tooth Biolok implants: a 5-year study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 19(6):849–854PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gatti C, Gatti F, Chiapasco M, Esposito M (2008) Outcome of dental implants in partially edentulous patients with and without a history of periodontitis: a 5-year interim analysis of a cohort study. Eur J Oral Implantol 1(1):45–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Vigolo P, Zaccaria M (2010) Clinical evaluation of marginal bone level change of multiple adjacent implants restored with splinted and nonsplinted restorations: a 5-year prospective study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 25(6):1189–1194PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Albrektsson T, Zarb G, Worthington P, Eriksson AR (1986) The long-term efficacy of currently used dental implants: a review and proposed criteria of success. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1(1):11–25PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Astrand P, Engquist B, Anzen B, Bergendal T, Hallman M, Karlsson U, Kvint S, Lysell L, Rundcranz T (2004) A three-year follow-up report of a comparative study of ITI dental implants and Branemark system implants in the treatment of the partially edentulous maxilla. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res 6(3):130–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Roscoe MG, Noritomi PY, Novais VR, Soares CJ (2013) Influence of alveolar bone loss, post type, and ferrule presence on the biomechanical behavior of endodontically treated maxillary canines: strain measurement and stress distribution. J Prosthet Dent 110(2):116–126. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Adyani-Fard D, Kim TS, Eickholz P (2011) Interproximal bone loss at contra-lateral teeth with and without root canal filling in periodontitis patients. J Clin Periodontol 38(3):269–275. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Santos AF, Meira JB, Tanaka CB, Xavier TA, Ballester RY, Lima RG, Pfeifer CS, Versluis A (2010) Can fiber posts increase root stresses and reduce fracture? J Dent Res 89(6):587–591. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Juloski J, Radovic I, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M (2012) Ferrule effect: a literature review. J Endod 38(1):11–19. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Magne P, Lazari PC, Carvalho MA, Johnson T, Del Bel Cury AA (2017) Ferrule-effect dominates over use of a fiber post when restoring endodontically treated incisors: an in vitro study. Oper Dent 42(4):396–406. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rodriguez FR, Paganoni N, Eickholz P, Weiger R, Walter C (2017) Presence of root canal treatment has no influence on periodontal bone loss. Clin Oral Investig 21:2741–2748. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bachicha WS, DiFiore PM, Miller DA, Lautenschlager EP, Pashley DH (1998) Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with posts. J Endod 24(11):703–708. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Reid LC, Kazemi RB, Meiers JC (2003) Effect of fatigue testing on core integrity and post microleakage of teeth restored with different post systems. J Endod 29(2):125–131. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Guth JF, Edelhoff D, Goldberg J, Magne P (2016) CAD/CAM polymer vs direct composite resin core buildups for endodontically treated molars without ferrule. Oper Dent 41(1):53–63. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Magne P, Goldberg J, Edelhoff D, Guth JF (2016) Composite resin core buildups with and without post for the restoration of endodontically treated molars without ferrule. Oper Dent 41(1):64–75. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Kim TS, Benn DK, Eickholz P (2002) Accuracy of computer-assisted radiographic measurement of interproximal bone loss in vertical bone defects. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 94(3):379–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Tihanyi D, Gera I, Eickholz P (2011) Influence of individual brightness and contrast adjustment on accuracy of radiographic measurements of infrabony defects. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 40(3):177–183. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Skupien JA, Opdam NJ, Winnen R, Bronkhorst EM, Kreulen CM, Pereira-Cenci T, Huysmans MC (2016) Survival of restored endodontically treated teeth in relation to periodontal status. Braz Dent J 27(1):37–40. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Savage A, Eaton KA, Moles DR, Needleman I (2009) A systematic review of definitions of periodontitis and methods that have been used to identify this disease. J Clin Periodontol 36(6):458–467. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    de Souza RF, Ahmadi M, Ribeiro AB, Emami E (2014) Focusing on outcomes and methods in removable prosthodontics trials: a systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 25(10):1137–1141. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Prosthodontics, Geriatric Dentistry and Craniomandibular DisordersCharité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, and Berlin Institute of HealthBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Zahnärzte am Bundesplatz BerlinBerlinGermany
  3. 3.Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center for Dental and Oral MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  4. 4.Department of Operative Dentistry and Endodontics, Medical Center for DentistryUniversity Medical Center Giessen and MarburgMarburgGermany

Personalised recommendations