title: In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This in vitro study evaluated 6 post systems over 4 simulated clinical stages of tooth restoration to (1) determine quantitatively the fracture resistance strength at each stage when a static loading force is applied to cause failure; (2) determine the failure mode for each post system at each simulated clinical stage; and (3) determine the feasibility of removing failed post systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Ten post systems made with various materials and designs were tested at the following 4 stages of simulated clinical treatment: stage #1: posts only, loaded using a 3-point loading model to failure, to determine transverse strengths and failure modes for each post system; stage #2: posts alone, bonded into teeth; stage #3: posts bonded into teeth with core build up; stage #4: post and core build up and full veneer restoration. For stages #2 through #4, the coronal portion of 60 mandibular premolars was amputated at the cemento-enamel junction, the canals were treated endodontically, and the specimens were mounted in acrylic blocks. A testing force was applied to the posts at 90 degrees to the long axis of the tooth, 4 mm from the cemento-enamel junction. The O'Brien test for constant variance was performed over the treatment groups. For nonconstant variance, the Welsh analysis of variance was used to test for equalities of treatment means. The Tukey Kramer procedure determined which treatment procedures differed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The failure thresholds for each post system were significantly different at each stage of testing, but the order of test results by post type remained generally consistent from one stage to the next. ParaPosts (Coltene, Whaledent Int, New York, NY) and core build up resulted in significantly higher failure thresholds through all 4 stages of testing. This post system also consistently displayed a high number of nonfavorable tooth fractures. FibreKor post and cores (Jeneric Pentron Inc, Wallingford, CT) resulted in significantly lower failure threshold values in stages #2 through #4. This post system displayed no tooth fractures in stages #2 and #3 and a similar number of nonfavorable tooth fractures in stage #4 when compared with the other systems. C-Post (Bisco Dental Products, Schaumburg, IL), CosmoPost (Ivoclar Vivadent North America Inc, Amherst, NY), and AesthetiPost (Bisco Dental Products) grouped in descending order through stages #2 to #4. These systems displayed intermediate fracture resistance strengths, as well as a moderate number of nonfavorable tooth fractures. CosmoPost exhibited a significant number of brittle post fractures with fragments left in the root canal at all stages. The fracture resistance of the cast metal post varied from stage to stage. No teeth fractured at stage #2. At stage #3, 9 of 10 teeth fractured nonfavorably, and all teeth fractured nonfavorably in stage #4.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The fiber posts evaluated provided an advantage over a conventional post that showed a higher number of irretrievable post and unrestorable root fractures. At the stage of final restoration insertion, there was no difference in force to failure for all but the FibreKor material, which continued to be weaker than all other tested materials. The fiber posts were readily retrievable after failure, whereas the remaining post systems tested were nonretrievable. J Prosthodont 2001;10:26-36.
authors.affiliation: Virginia Commonwealth University, School of Dentistry, Dept. of Prosthodontics, Richmond, VA 23298-0566, USA.
authors.forename: C J
authors.initials: CJ
authors.lastname: Cormier
authors.forename: D R
authors.initials: DR
authors.lastname: Burns
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Moon
mesh_terms: D000704:Analysis of Variance; D001641:Bicuspid; D002244:Carbon / Q000737:chemistry; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry; D003442:Crowns; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003764:Dental Materials / Q000737:chemistry*; D017267:Dental Prosthesis Design; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003801:Dental Veneers; D004853:Epoxy Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D005240:Feasibility Studies; D005898:Glass / Q000737:chemistry; D006047:Gold Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D010165:Palladium / Q000737:chemistry; D011176:Post and Core Technique / Q000145:classification / Q000295:instrumentation*; D011791:Quartz / Q000737:chemistry; D012390:Root Canal Therapy; D013223:Statistics as Topic; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry; D019246:Tooth Preparation / Q000379:methods*; D015040:Zirconium / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: D003764:Dental Materials; D004853:Epoxy Resins; D006047:Gold Alloys; C009753:fiberglass; D011791:Quartz; D010165:Palladium; D002244:Carbon; D015040:Zirconium; D014025:Titanium; C028541:zirconium oxide