4.5 Article

Dentin-like versus Rigid Endodontic Post: 11-year Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial on No-wall to 2-wall Defects

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 43, 期 11, 页码 1770-1775

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.06.030

关键词

Endodontic post; glass fiber post; long-term clinical trial; post and core; randomized controlled trial; titanium post

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This is the first long-term randomized controlled trial to evaluate dentin-like glass fiber posts (GFPs) compared with rather rigid titanium posts (TPs) for post-endodontic restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated teeth with 2 or fewer remaining cavity walls. Methods: Ninety-one subjects in need of post-endodontic restorations were randomly assigned to receive either a tapered GFP (n = 45) or TP (n = 46). Posts were adhesively luted by using self-adhesive resin cement, followed by composite core build-up and preparation of 2-mm ferrule design. Primary end point was loss of restoration for any reason. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed, and log-rank test was calculated (P < .05). Results: After a follow-up of 132 months, 17 GFP and 20 TP restorations survived, and 19 failed (12 GFP, 7 TP). Failure modes for GFP were root fracture (n = 4), core fracture (n = 1), secondary caries (n = 1), endodontic failure (n = 2), extraction because of tooth mobility grade Ill associated with insufficient design of removable partial denture (n = 1), tooth fracture (n = 1), and changes in treatment plan (n = 2); failure modes for TP were endodontic failure (n = 5), root fracture (n = 1), and 1 extraction for other reasons. Cumulative survival probability was 58.7% for GFP and 74.2% for TP. Conclusions: When using self-adhesively luted prefabricated posts, resin composite core build-up, and 2-mm ferrule to reconstruct severely damaged endodontically treated teeth, tooth survival is not influenced by post rigidity. Survival decreased rapidly after 8 years of observation in both groups.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据