Impact of endodontic post material on longitudinal changes in interproximal bone level: a randomized controlled pilot trial
- 48 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsAdhesively 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.
This article contains a study with human participants performed by the authors. The number of the approval of the ethics committee is No. NCT01520766.
For this type of study, informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- 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
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.06.030 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-016-1919-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.04.002 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.08.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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
- 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.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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60350-9 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar