Statement of problem
Although the scientific literature provides sound decision-making tools for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth, dentists have different opinions on the rationale for the use of endodontic posts (dowels) and selection of post systems. The decision to place a post is at times contrary to the literature. Updated information on the treatment of endodontically treated teeth among general dentists is lacking.
The purpose of this survey was to gain insight into the rationale for choice of endodontic posts and the different endodontic post systems currently used by dental practitioners. Post and core restorations distribute stress and replace missing tooth structure in endodontically treated teeth. Guidelines exist to help select post systems. With the advent of new materials, prefabricated posts have gained popularity among dentists. However, cast-metal post-and-core systems are still considered the gold standard.
Material and methods
Surveys were distributed to dentists attending continuing education meetings in the United States, Canada, Scotland, Ireland, and Greece. The questions addressed years of practice, specialty training, and brand, type, shape, and material of the endodontic post systems used.
Descriptive statistical analysis was used to assess the percentage of respondents. Ninety-two percent of the participants were general practitioners with 25.94 ±13.35 years of experience. The majority agreed upon using endodontic posts when insufficient coronal tooth structure remains and for stress distribution. Passive, parallel posts were the most commonly reported type and shape. With regard to post material, fiber posts were the most frequently used (72.2%), followed by prefabricated alloys (38.6%), cast-metal posts (33.9%), prefabricated titanium posts (30.1%), and stainless-steel posts (21.7%). For cementation, resin-modified glass ionomer (40%) was most frequently used, followed by self-adhesive resin (29.6%).
The majority of the practitioners used fiber posts. This may be because, in terms of fracture, they compare favorably with cast-metal post and core, although little evidence in the literature validates this claim.
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online access
One-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:Subscribe to Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Already a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
- Quality of life of endodontically treated versus implant treated patients: a university-based qualitative research study.J Endo. 2011; 37: 903-909
- Influence of clinical baseline findings on the survival of 2 post systems: a randomized clinical trial.Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 173-178
- The retentive and stress-distributing properties of a threaded endodontic dowel.J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 44: 398-404
- A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts.J Prosthet Dent. 1998; 80: 151-157
- A retrospective long term study of teeth restored with prefabricated carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin posts.Swed Dent J. 2006; 30: 1-8
- A comparison of composite post buildups and cast gold post-and-core buildups for the restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10 years.Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 63-69
- Effect of cleaning method, luting agent and preparation procedure on the retention of fibre posts.Int Endod J. 2012; 45: 1116-1126
- The effect of dowel space on the bond strengths of fiber posts.J Prosthodont. 2007; 16: 154-164
- Retention of endodontic dowels: Effects of cement, dowel length, diameter, and design.J Prosthet Dent. 1978; 39: 401-405
- Restoration of endodontically treated teeth.Dent Clin N Am. 2004; 48: 397-416
- Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51: 780-784
- Load fatigue of teeth restored with cast posts and cores and complete crowns.Int J Prosthodont. 1995; 8: 155-161
- Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs.J Prosthet Dent. 1995; 73: 439-444
- Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics: current knowledge and future needs.J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82: 643-657
- A 10-year retrospective study of the survival rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and cores.J Dent. 2010; 38: 916-920
- 10-year survival evaluation for glass-fiber-supported postendodontic restoration: a prospective observational clinical study.J Endod. 2012; 38: 432-435
- Risk factors for failure of glass fiber-reinforced composite post restorations: a prospective observational clinical study.Eur J Oral Sci. 2005; 113: 519-524
- Randomized controlled clinical pilot trial of titanium vs. glass fiber prefabricated posts: preliminary results after up to 3 years.Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20: 499-503
- Restoring endodontically treated teeth: a survey of current opinions among board-certified prosthodontists and general dental practitioners in Sweden.Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14: 245-249
- Postendodontic restoration: a survey among dentists in Switzerland.Schweizer Monatsschrift fur Zahnmedizin. 2013; 123: 1076-1088
- Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a nationwide survey of dentists in Germany.J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 96: 332-338
- A survey of current practices among general dental practitioners in Manchester in 2002.Primary Dental Care. 2003; 10: 87-92
- A nationwide survey of contemporary philosophies and techniques of restoring endodontically treated teeth.J Prosthet Dent. 1994; 72: 259-267
- Pin-retained amalgam cores vs. cast-gold dowel-cores.J Prosthet Dent. 1977; 38: 507-514
- In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement.J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 42: 39-44
- Long-term retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts.Am J Dent. 2007; 20: 287-291
Published online: October 27, 2016
© 2016 by the Editorial Council for The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry.