Aim and objective: The present study compared the fracture strength and failure pattern of endodontically treated, bi-rooted, maxillary premolars with different number of coronal walls and postendodontic restoration (one vs double post). Materials and methods: 105 premolars were divided into 3 groups according to the number of residual walls: control group (intact teeth; n= 15), group 1 (3 residual walls; n = 45), group 2 (2 residual walls; n = 45). Each test group was then divided into 3 subgroups (n = 15 each) according to postendodontic restoration: no post (A), 1 post (B) or 2 posts (C). A load was applied parallel to the longitudinal axis of the teeth, thus simulating physiological occlusion. ANOVA and Tukey’s tests were used to detect fracture strength differences among groups, while Chisquare test was used to check differences in fracture pattern. Results: No significant differences were observed between control group (intact teeth) and groups A1 (p = 0.999), B1 (p = 0.997) and C1 (p = 1.000); statistically significant differences were detected between control group and groups A2 (p < 0.001), B2 (p < 0.001) and C2 (p < 0.05). Different post placement techniques were non-significantly associated with fracture pattern in both groups 1 (p = 0.666) and 2 (p = 0.143) while, irrespective of the number of posts, the presence of the post was significantly associated with the fracture pattern in teeth with two residual walls. The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of hardly damaged endodontically treated maxillary bi-rooted premolars compared to single-post technique. Therefore, the insertion of a single post in the palatal canal could be a safer and more conservative choice. Clinical significance: The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of severely structurally compromised endodontically treated maxillary premolars with two roots compared to the single-post technique. Therefore, the safer and less invasive treatment is the placement of a single post in the palatal canal.

Spicciarelli, V., Marruganti, C., Martignoni, M., Andreatti, L., Doldo, T., Ferrari, M., et al. (2020). Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY DENTAL PRACTICE, 21(12), 1374-1378 [10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980].

Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post

Spicciarelli, V.;Marruganti, C.;Doldo, T.;Ferrari, M.;Grandini, S.
2020

Abstract

Aim and objective: The present study compared the fracture strength and failure pattern of endodontically treated, bi-rooted, maxillary premolars with different number of coronal walls and postendodontic restoration (one vs double post). Materials and methods: 105 premolars were divided into 3 groups according to the number of residual walls: control group (intact teeth; n= 15), group 1 (3 residual walls; n = 45), group 2 (2 residual walls; n = 45). Each test group was then divided into 3 subgroups (n = 15 each) according to postendodontic restoration: no post (A), 1 post (B) or 2 posts (C). A load was applied parallel to the longitudinal axis of the teeth, thus simulating physiological occlusion. ANOVA and Tukey’s tests were used to detect fracture strength differences among groups, while Chisquare test was used to check differences in fracture pattern. Results: No significant differences were observed between control group (intact teeth) and groups A1 (p = 0.999), B1 (p = 0.997) and C1 (p = 1.000); statistically significant differences were detected between control group and groups A2 (p < 0.001), B2 (p < 0.001) and C2 (p < 0.05). Different post placement techniques were non-significantly associated with fracture pattern in both groups 1 (p = 0.666) and 2 (p = 0.143) while, irrespective of the number of posts, the presence of the post was significantly associated with the fracture pattern in teeth with two residual walls. The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of hardly damaged endodontically treated maxillary bi-rooted premolars compared to single-post technique. Therefore, the insertion of a single post in the palatal canal could be a safer and more conservative choice. Clinical significance: The double-post technique did not further improve the fracture resistance of severely structurally compromised endodontically treated maxillary premolars with two roots compared to the single-post technique. Therefore, the safer and less invasive treatment is the placement of a single post in the palatal canal.
Spicciarelli, V., Marruganti, C., Martignoni, M., Andreatti, L., Doldo, T., Ferrari, M., et al. (2020). Different Post Placement Strategies for the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Maxillary Premolars with Two Roots: Single Post vs Double Post. JOURNAL OF CONTEMPORARY DENTAL PRACTICE, 21(12), 1374-1378 [10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2980].
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
Different Post Placement Strategies-Spicciarelli-2020.pdf

accesso aperto

Descrizione: Articolo
Tipologia: PDF editoriale
Licenza: Creative commons
Dimensione 2.68 MB
Formato Adobe PDF
2.68 MB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: http://hdl.handle.net/11365/1215874