Prospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved.
World J Clin Cases. Mar 16, 2018; 6(3): 27-34
Published online Mar 16, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
Buket Ayna, Emrah Ayna, Sema Çelenk, Emine Göncü Başaran, Berivan Dündar Yılmaz, İbrahim Halil Tacir, Mehmet Cudi Tuncer
Buket Ayna, Sema Çelenk, Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbakır 21280, Turkey
Emrah Ayna, Emine Göncü Başaran, Berivan Dündar Yılmaz, İbrahim Halil Tacir, Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbakır 21280, Turkey
Mehmet Cudi Tuncer, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Dicle University, Diyarbakır 21280, Turkey
Author contributions: Ayna B, Ayna E and Çelenk S were responsible for the study design, data analysis, andmanuscript preparation; Yılmaz BD wrote the paper; Ayna B and Çelenk S performed endodontic treatment; Ayna E, Başaran EG and Yılmaz BD carried out evalation of the stability and lifespan of the restorations Ayna E, Tacir İH were prepared teeth; Tuncer MC were responsible for data collection and manuscript preparation.
Institutional review board statement: The study is registered at Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty Hospital Trial Registry (PRO-3258/2010-13; Patient follow-up software system).
Clinical trial registration statement: The study is registered at Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Faculty Hospital trial registry (Patient follow-up software).
Informed consent statement: All the treatment procedures were performed after obtaining the informed consent in writing from the patients.
Conflict-of-interest statement: All authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest and nothing to declare.
Data sharing statement: No additional data are available.
Open-Access: This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Correspondence to: Mehmet Cudi Tuncer, PhD, Full Professor, Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine, Dicle University, Fabrika mahallesi, 760. sokak, Sunrise 2 Evleri, E Blok, Kat.3, No.9, Diyarbakır 21280, Turkey. drcudi@hotmail.com
Telephone: +90-412-2488001-4539 Fax: +90-532-2744926
Received: December 21, 2017
Peer-review started: December 21, 2017
First decision: January 3, 2018
Revised: January 5, 2018
Accepted: February 4, 2018
Article in press: February 4, 2018
Published online: March 16, 2018
Processing time: 82 Days and 19.4 Hours
Abstract
AIM

To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts.

METHODS

Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibular central incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored either with an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWP) fiber post (Bondable Reinforcement Ribbon, DENSE, Ribbond, Seattle, WA, United States) or a zircon-rich glass fiber post (Snowpost, Lot H 040; Carbotech, Ganges, France). Then, direct resin composite restoration (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was performed for both post systems in tooth color suitable. Patients were recalled for routine inspections at 6 mo, 1, 2 and 3 years.

RESULTS

The restorations were assessed during each recall evaluation according to predetermined clinical and radiographic criteria (periapical lesion; marginal leakage and integrity; color stability; surface stain and loss of retention of the post or the composite build-up material). The follow-up data showed no significant difference in these criteria between polyethylene fibre posts and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts were similar, suggesting that both types of fiber post can be used successfully to help retain resin composite restorations.

Keywords: Polyethylene fiber; Zircon-rich glass fiber; Direct composite

Core tip: The results of our study showed that both administrations were equally successful in the 36-mo clinical follow-up. Composite-zircon-dentin-post-core monoblock are clinically successful as polyethylene fiber posts. In summary, after 36 mo of follow-up observation, 62 endodontically treated central incisors with partial crown loss that had been restored with polyethylene fibre or zirconia-rich glass fibre posts and direct resin composite exhibited favourable clinical outcomes. The combined use of fibre posts and composite materials is an efficient alternative to conventional courses of treatment for endodontically treated anterior teeth.