title: Which type of post and core system should you use?
abstract: METHODS
  Articles were sourced using the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Scopus (abstract and citation database; www.scopus.com), Embase and the reference lists of articles and dental conference proceedings. Researchers in the field and manufacturers were also contacted.
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCT) or quasi-RCT were selected if they compared failures in endodontically-treated permanent teeth with different types of post.
  
  
  METHODS
  Two review authors independently assessed the quality of trials and extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Two trials involving 317 participants were included, but only one of them (which had 200 participants) compared metal with nonmetal posts. The other answered the secondary objective. The risk of failure was greater with metal-cast posts (nine out of 98 metal posts failed) than with carbon fibre posts [using which, none out of 97 failed; risk ratio (RR), 0.05; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.00-0.90] but the study was at high risk of bias. Thus, even though fewer failures occurred when using nonmetal posts, the evidence is unreliable.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  This review could not specify which type of post and core system should be used when two or three dentine walls remain. More RCT are needed to confirm whether fibre-reinforced post and core systems are superior, and to clarify the influence of the remaining tooth structure on the treatment outcome using different post and core systems. Well-defined inclusion criteria focusing on the number of dentine walls (two or three) should be used.
authors.affiliation: Prosthodontics and Dental Public Health, Dental Department, Armed Forces Hospital, Dhahran, Saudi Arabia.
authors.forename: Asim
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Al-Ansari