Post-Retained Single Crowns versus Fixed Dental Prostheses: A 7-Year Prospective Clinical Study

Biomechanical integrity of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is often compromised. Degree of hard tissue loss and type of final prosthetic restoration should be carefully considered when making a treatment plan. The objective of this prospective clinical trial was to assess the influence of the type of prosthetic restoration as well as the degree of hard tissue loss on 7-y clinical performance of ETT restored with fiber posts. Two groups (n = 60) were defined depending on the type of prosthetic restoration needed: 1) single unit porcelain-fused-to-metal (PFM) crowns (SCs) and 2) 3- to 4-unit PFM fixed dental prostheses (FDPs), with 1 healthy and 1 endodontically treated and fiber post-restored abutment. Within each group, samples were divided into 2 subgroups (n = 30) according to the amount of residual coronal tissues after abutment buildup and final preparation: A) >50% of coronal residual structure or B) equal to or <50% of coronal residual structure. The clinical outcome was assessed based on clinical and intraoral radiographic examinations at the recalls after 6, 12, 24, 36, 48, and 84 mo. Data were analyzed by Kaplan-Meier log-rank test and Cox regression analysis (P < 0.05). The overall 7-y survival rate of ETT restored with fiber post and either SCs or FDPs was 69.2%. The highest 84-mo survival rate was recorded in group 1A (90%), whereas teeth in group 2B exhibited the lowest performance (56.7% survival rate). The log-rank test detected statistically significant differences in survival rates among the groups (P = 0.048). Cox regression analysis revealed that the amount of residual coronal structure (P = 0.041; hazard ratio [HR], 2.026; 95% confidence interval [CI] for HR, 1.031–3.982) and the interaction between the type of prosthetic restoration and the amount of residual coronal structure (P = 0.024; HR, 1.372; 95% CI for HR, 1.042–1.806) were statistically significant factors for survival (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01532947)

Conventional dual-cure versus self-adhesive resin cements in dentin bond integrity

During post preparation, the root canal is exposed to the oral cavity, and endodontic treatment may fail because of coronal leakage, bacterial infection and sealing inability of the luting cement. OBJECTIVE: this study quantified the interfacial continuity produced with conventional dual-cure and self-adhesive resin cements in the cervical (C), medium (M) and apical (A) thirds of the root. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty single-rooted human teeth were restored using Reforpost # 01 conical glass-fiber posts and different materials (N=10 per group): group AC=Adper&#8482; ScotchBond&#8482; Multi-purpose Plus + AllCem; group ARC=Adper&#8482; ScotchBond&#8482; Multi-purpose Plus + RelyX ARC; group U100=RelyX U100; and group MXC=Maxcem Elite. After being kept in 100% humidity at 37°C for 72 hours, the samples were sectioned parallel to their longitudinal axis and positive epoxy resin replicas were made. The scanning electron micrographs of each third section of the teeth were combined using Image Analyst software and measured with AutoCAD-2002. We obtained percentage values of the interfacial continuity. RESULTS: Interfacial continuity was similar in the apical, medium and cervical thirds of the roots within the groups (Friedman test, p>0.05). Comparison of the different cements in a same root third showed that interfacial continuity was lower in MXC (C=45.5%; M=48.5%; A=47.3%) than in AC (C=85.9%, M=81.8% and A=76.0%), ARC (C=83.8%, M=82.4% and A=75.0%) and U100 (C=84.1%, M=82.4% and A=77.3%) (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Allcem, Rely X ARC and U100 provide the best cementation; cementation was similar among root portions; in practical terms, U100 is the best resin because it combines good cementation and easy application and none of the cements provides complete interfacial continuity