Cargando…

Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations

AIM: To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS: Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibular central incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored ei...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ayna, Buket, Ayna, Emrah, Çelenk, Sema, Başaran, Emine Göncü, Yılmaz, Berivan Dündar, Tacir, İbrahim Halil, Tuncer, Mehmet Cudi
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29564355
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27
_version_ 1783306562622717952
author Ayna, Buket
Ayna, Emrah
Çelenk, Sema
Başaran, Emine Göncü
Yılmaz, Berivan Dündar
Tacir, İbrahim Halil
Tuncer, Mehmet Cudi
author_facet Ayna, Buket
Ayna, Emrah
Çelenk, Sema
Başaran, Emine Göncü
Yılmaz, Berivan Dündar
Tacir, İbrahim Halil
Tuncer, Mehmet Cudi
author_sort Ayna, Buket
collection PubMed
description AIM: To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS: Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibular central incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored either with an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWP) fiber post (Bondable Reinforcement Ribbon, DENSE, Ribbond, Seattle, WA, United States) or a zircon-rich glass fiber post (Snowpost, Lot H 040; Carbotech, Ganges, France). Then, direct resin composite restoration (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was performed for both post systems in tooth color suitable. Patients were recalled for routine inspections at 6 mo, 1, 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: The restorations were assessed during each recall evaluation according to predetermined clinical and radiographic criteria (periapical lesion; marginal leakage and integrity; color stability; surface stain and loss of retention of the post or the composite build-up material). The follow-up data showed no significant difference in these criteria between polyethylene fibre posts and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts were similar, suggesting that both types of fiber post can be used successfully to help retain resin composite restorations.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5852396
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher Baishideng Publishing Group Inc
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58523962018-03-22 Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations Ayna, Buket Ayna, Emrah Çelenk, Sema Başaran, Emine Göncü Yılmaz, Berivan Dündar Tacir, İbrahim Halil Tuncer, Mehmet Cudi World J Clin Cases Prospective Study AIM: To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS: Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibular central incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored either with an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWP) fiber post (Bondable Reinforcement Ribbon, DENSE, Ribbond, Seattle, WA, United States) or a zircon-rich glass fiber post (Snowpost, Lot H 040; Carbotech, Ganges, France). Then, direct resin composite restoration (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was performed for both post systems in tooth color suitable. Patients were recalled for routine inspections at 6 mo, 1, 2 and 3 years. RESULTS: The restorations were assessed during each recall evaluation according to predetermined clinical and radiographic criteria (periapical lesion; marginal leakage and integrity; color stability; surface stain and loss of retention of the post or the composite build-up material). The follow-up data showed no significant difference in these criteria between polyethylene fibre posts and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts. CONCLUSION: The efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts were similar, suggesting that both types of fiber post can be used successfully to help retain resin composite restorations. Baishideng Publishing Group Inc 2018-03-16 2018-03-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5852396/ /pubmed/29564355 http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27 Text en ©The Author(s) 2018. Published by Baishideng Publishing Group Inc. All rights reserved. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is an open-access article which was selected by an in-house editor and fully peer-reviewed by external reviewers. It is distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial.
spellingShingle Prospective Study
Ayna, Buket
Ayna, Emrah
Çelenk, Sema
Başaran, Emine Göncü
Yılmaz, Berivan Dündar
Tacir, İbrahim Halil
Tuncer, Mehmet Cudi
Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title_full Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title_fullStr Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title_short Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
title_sort comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations
topic Prospective Study
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5852396/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29564355
http://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27
work_keys_str_mv AT aynabuket comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT aynaemrah comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT celenksema comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT basaraneminegoncu comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT yılmazberivandundar comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT taciribrahimhalil comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations
AT tuncermehmetcudi comparisonoftheclinicalefficacyoftwodifferenttypesofpostsystemswhichwererestoredwithcompositerestorations