Clinical evaluation of carbon fiber reinforced carbon endodontic post, glass fiber reinforced post with cast post and core: A one year comparative clinical study

Abstract

Aim: Restoring endodontically treated teeth is one of the major treatments provided by the dental practitioner. Selection and proper use of restorative materials continues to be a source of frustration for many clinicians. There is controversy surrounding the most suitable choice of restorative material and the placement method that will result in the highest probability of successful treatment. This clinical study compares two different varieties of fiber posts and one cast post and core in terms of mobility of crown margin under finger pressure, recurrent caries detected at the crown margin, fracture of the restoration, fracture of the root and periapical and periodontal pathology requiring crown removal over the period of 12months as evaluated by clinical and radiographical examination. Materials and Methods: 30 root canal treated, single rooted maxillary anterior teeth of 25 patients in the age range of 18-60 years where a post retained crown was indicated were selected for the study between January 2007 and August 2007; and prepared in a standard clinical manner. It was divided into 3 groups of 10 teeth in each group. After post space preparation, the Carbon fiber and Glass fiber reinforced posts were cemented with Scotch bond multipurpose plus bonding agent and RelyX adhesive resin cement in the first and second groups respectively. The Cast post and cores were cemented with Zinc Phosphate cement in the third group. Following post- cementation, the preparation was further refined and a rubber base impression was taken for metal-ceramic crowns which was cemented with Zinc Phosphate cement. A baseline periapical radiograph was taken once each crown was cemented. All patients were evaluated after one week (baseline), 3 months, 6 months and one year for following characteristics mobility of crown margin under finger pressure, recurrent caries detected at the crown margin, fracture of the restoration, fracture of the root and periapical and periodontal pathology. Results: Results after 12 months showed that none of the restorations among groups of cast post and core, carbon fiber reinforced post and glass fiber reinforced post with composite core restorations failed in terms of recurrent caries detected at the crown margin, fracture of the restoration, fracture of the root and periapical and periodontal pathology. One case of cast post and core and one case of carbon fiber reinforced post with composite core restorations showed slight mobility of crown margin under finger pressure at 12 ^th month recall but all the cases of glass fiber post with composite core restorations did not show any signs of mobility of crown margin under finger pressure at all the recall periods on clinical and radiographical examination. Conclusion: From this 12 months clinical evaluation of all the cases in the 3 groups comprising of cast post and core; carbon fiber reinforced post with composite core and glass fiber reinforced post with composite core restored with porcelain fused to metal crowns, it is concluded that glass fiber reinforced post with composite core when used in single rooted upper anterior teeth are associated with a higher success rate in restoration of endodontically treated teeth.