In this survey, retrospective and prospective clinical studies dealing with cast-post-and core and fiber posts were reviewed regarding the rate of survival of restorations and the most prevalent failures. Electronic searches of the literature were performed in MEDLINE by crossing the key words: "Fiber post and clinical study", "Fiber post and clinical evaluation", "Cast post-and-core and clinical study", and "Root post and retrospective survival study". The cut-off dates were December 1990 through the end of December 2010. Review of literature showed that several interrelated biological, mechanical, and aesthetic factors are involved in the survival rate of restorative procedures in endodontically treated teeth, and post selection should fulfill and optimize these factors. Data based on long-term clinical studies are essential for the general practitioner when making clinical decisions. An adequate selection of teeth and post system must be made, and a minimal amount of existing tooth substance should be removed. A ferrule must be present for safe indication of the fiber posts. Fiber glass posts have demonstrated good survival in clinical studies, with similar performance to cast-post-and cores. Metallic posts have good clinical survival, but the associated failures are mostly irreversible, unlike what happens with the glass fiber posts.
Bond strength of groups that received CH paste was similar to that found in the control group in 13 of the 18 associated factors. EDTA and SH reduced bond strength in specimens in the immediate (middle and apical thirds) and 21-day (middle third) groups. There was a significant reduction in bond strength in the groups irrigated with SH and tested at 6 months (cervical and middle thirds). There was a predominance of adhesive failures between resin cement and dentine in all groups.
Two millimetre of ferrule had a significant influence on cusp strain, fracture resistance and failure mode. The glass fibre post was as effective as the cast Ni-Cr alloy post and core in the restoration of root filled molars regardless of the remaining tooth tissue. Absence of a post decreased the fracture resistance and increased the cusp strain.
This study evaluated the influence of the method and period of storage on the adhesive bond strength of indirect composite resin to bovine dentin. Ninety bovine incisors were stored in three different solutions: 0.2% thymol, 10% formalin, and 0.2% sodium azide, during 3 periods of storage: 7 days, 30 days and 6 months, resulting in 9 groups (n = 10). The roots were cut off and the buccal surface was ground with #600-grit silicon carbide paper. The surface was conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s and a composite resin restoration (TPH Spectrum) was fixed using a one-bottle adhesive system (Adper Single Bond) and a dual-cured resinous cement (Rely X ARC) under a load of 500 g for 5 minutes. The samples were serially cut perpendicular to the bonded interface to obtain slices of 1.2 mm in thickness. Each slab was trimmed with a cylindrical diamond bur resulting in an hourglass shape with a cross-sectional area of approximately 1 mm(2). The microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing was performed in a testing machine (EMIC 2000 DL) at a 0.5 mm/minute crosshead-speed until failure. After fracture, the specimens were examined under SEM to analyze the mode of fracture. muTBS Means were expressed in MPa and the data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA (3X3) and the Tukey test (alpha = 0.05). The storage times of 7 and 30 days produced no significant difference irrespective of the solution type. The formalin and thymol solutions, however, did have a negative influence on bond strength when the teeth were stored for 6 months.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.