pp 1–8 | Cite as

Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth restored with different fiber post and core systems

  • Taha Özyürek
  • Can Topkara
  • İmran Koçak
  • Koray Yılmaz
  • Mustafa Gündoğar
  • Gülşah UsluEmail author
Original Article


The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of different post and core systems, CAD/CAM crown placement on fracture strength of endodontically treated mandibular premolar teeth. One hundred forty single-rooted premolar teeth were randomly divided into a control group and six experimental groups as follows: control group (Group 1); FiberSite post luting with Clearfil DC Core Plus (Group 2); RelyX Fiber post luting and core build up with Clearfil DC Core Plus (Group 3); RelyX Fiber post luting with Clearfil DC Core Plus and core build up with Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (Group 4); specimens that received CAD/CAM crowns after the same procedures performed in Groups 2, 3, and 4, respectively (Groups 5, 6, and 7). Fracture strength tests were performed, and the failure modes were recorded. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests. The highest fracture resistance was observed in the control group and among the experimental groups in Group 4. Groups 3 and 5 showed similar fracture resistance followed by Group 2. The lowest fracture resistances were seen in the samples of Groups 6 and 7. While the fracture strength of Group 2 increased after the crown placement (Group 5), the fracture strength of Group 3 and Group 4 decreased (P < 0.05). While the specimens in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4 predominantly showed favorable failure, unfavorable failure was more frequent in Groups 5, 6, and 7.


Mandibular premolar Endodontically treated teeth Fiber post CAD/CAM Fracture resistance 



This article was not funded by any institution or organization.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Bolay Ş, Öztürk E, Tuncel B, Ertan A. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with or without post systems. J Dent Sci. 2012;7:148–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;97:93–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pantaleón DS, Morrow BR, Cagna DR, Pameijer CH, Garcia-Godoy F. Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure on fracture resistance and failure mode of restored endodontically treated maxillary incisors. J Prosthet Dent. 2018;119:390–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Barjau-Escribano A, Sancho-Bru JL, Forner-Navarro L, Rodríguez-Cervantes PJ, Perez-Gonzalez A, Sanchez-Marin FT. Influence of prefabricated post material on restored teeth: fracture strength and stress distribution. Oper Dent. 2006;31:47–544.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Giachetti L, Russo DS, Bertini F, Giuliani V. Translucent fiber post cementation using a light-curing adhesive/composite system: SEM analysis and pull-out test. J Dent. 2004;32:629–34.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Magne P, Goldberg J, Edelhoff D, Güth JF. Composite resin core buildups with and without post for the restoration of endodontically treated molars without ferrule. Oper Dent. 2016;41:64–75.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Radovic I, Corciolani G, Magni E, Krstanovic G, Pavlovic V, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Light transmission through fiber post: the effect on adhesion, elastic modulus and hardness of dual-cure resin cement. Dent Mater. 2009;25:837–44.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leprince JG, Palin WM, Vanacker J, Sabbagh J, Devaux J, Leloup G. Physico-mechanical characteristics of commercially available bulk-fill composites. J Dent. 2014;42:993–1000.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    MegaDental. Brochure products. Accessed 1 May 2019.
  10. 10.
    Mazzitelli C, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Ferrari M, Osorio R. Effect of thermal cycling on the bond strength of self-adhesive cements to fiber posts. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16:909–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zicari F, De Munck J, Scotti R, Naert I, Van Meerbeek B. Factors affecting the cement–post interface. Dent Mater. 2012;28:287–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dimitrouli M, Geurtsen W, Lührs AK. Comparison of the push-out strength of two fiber post systems dependent on different types of resin cements. Clin Oral Invest. 2012;16:899–908.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Novais VR, Rodrigues RB, Simamoto Júnior PC, Lourenço CS, Soares CJ. Correlation between the mechanical properties and structural characteristics of different fiber post systems. Braz Dent J. 2016;27:46–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jayasenthil A, Solomon-Sathish E, Venkatalakshmi-Aparna P, Balagopal S. Fracture resistance of tooth restored with four glass fiber post systems of varying surface geometries—an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016;8:e44–e48.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32:271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Maccari PC, Conceicao EN, Nunes MF. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with three different prefabricated esthetic posts. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15:25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Özcan M, Valandro LF. Fracture strength of endodontically-treated teeth restored with post and cores and composite cores only. Oper Dent. 2009;34:429–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Fernandes AS, Dessai GS. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14:355–63.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth: post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:611–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Guo J, Wang Z, Li X, Sun C, Gao E, Li H. A comparison of the fracture resistances of endodontically treated mandibular premolars restored with endocrowns and glass fiber post-core retained conventional crowns. J Adv Prosthodont. 2016;8:489–93.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Panitiwat P, Salimee P. Effect of different composite core materials on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with FRC post. J Appl Oral Sci. 2017;25:203–10.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pereira JR, De Ornelas F, Conti PCR, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Nissan J, Barnea E, Bar-Hen D, Assif D. Effect of remaining coronal structure on the resistance to fracture of crowned endodontically treated maxillary first premolars. Quintessence Int. 2008;39:e183–e187187.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De Munck J, Vargas MA, Van Landuyt K, Hikta K, Lambrachts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding of auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2004;20:963–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Al-Asaf K, Chakmakchi M, Palaghias G, Karanika-Kouma A, Eliades G. Interfacial characteristics of adhesive luting resins and composites with dentine. Dent Mater. 2007;23:829–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Monticelli F, Osorio R, Mazzitelli C, Ferrari M, Toledano M. Limited decalcification/diffusion of self-adhesive cements into dentin. J Dent Res. 2008;87:974–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;51:780–4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fráter M, Forster A, Jantyik Á, Braunitzer G, Nagy K, Grandini S. In vitro fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with fibre-reinforced composite posts using a single or a multi-post technique. Aust Endod J. 2017;43:16–22.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hannig C, Westphal C, Becker K, Attin T. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars restored with CAD/CAM ceramic inlays. J Prosthet Dent. 2005;94:342–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bitter K, Meyer-Lueckel H, Fotiadis N, Blunck U, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM, Paris S. Influence of endodontic treatment, post insertion, and ceramic restoration on the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars. Int Endod J. 2010;43:469–77.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cooney JP, Caputo AA, Trabert KC. Retention and stress distribution of tapered-end endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1986;55:540–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Signore A, Benedicenti S, Kaitsas V, Barone M, Angiero F, Ravera G. Long-term survival of endodontically treated, maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or parallel-sided glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown coverage. J Dent. 2009;37:115–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Milot P, Stein RS. Root fracture in endodontically treated teeth related to post selection and crown design. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:428–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Santini MF, Wandscher V, Amaral M, Baldissara P, Valandro LF. Mechanical fatigue cycling on teeth restored with fiber posts: impact of coronal grooves and diameter of glass fiber post on fracture resistance. Minerva Stomatol. 2011;60:485–93.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Abouelleil H, Pradelle N, Villat C, Attik N, Colon P, Grosgogeat B. Comparison of mechanical properties of a new fiber reinforced composite and bulk filling composites. Restor Dent Endod. 2015;40:262–70.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Chang CY, Kuo JS, Lin YS, Chang YH. Fracture resistance and failure modes of CEREC endo-crowns and conventional post and core-supported CEREC crowns. J Dent Sci. 2009;4:110–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Nam SH, Chang HS, Min KS. Effect of the number of residual walls on fracture resistances, failure patterns, and photoelasticity of simulated premolars restored with or without fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Endod. 2010;36:297–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Marchi GM, Mitsui FHO, Cavalcanti AN. Effect of remaining dentine structure and thermal-mechanical aging on the fracture resistance of bovine roots with different post and core systems. Int Endod J. 2008;41:969–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Naumann M, Sterzenbach G, Pröschel P. Evaluation of load testing of postendodontic restorations in vitro: linear compressive loading, gradual cycling loading and chewing simulation. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biometer. 2005;74:829–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryMedeniyet UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Private PracticeSamsunTurkey
  3. 3.Oral and Dental Health CenterOsmaniyeTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryMustafa Kemal UniversityHatayTurkey
  5. 5.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryMedipol UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  6. 6.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryOnsekiz Mart UniversityÇanakkaleTurkey

Personalised recommendations