title: Three-dimensional finite element analysis of stress distribution in a tooth restored with metal and fiber posts of varying diameters: An in-vitro study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To compare stress distribution in a tooth restored with metal and fiber posts of varying diameters (1.2 and 1.4 mm) by means of three-dimensional finite element analysis (3D-FEA).
  
  
  METHODS
  Four 3D-FEA models were constructed: (1) fiber post (1.2 and 1.4 mm) and (2) metal post (1.2 and 1.4 mm). The material properties were assigned and a force of 100 N was applied at 45° angle to the longitudinal axis of the tooth onto the palatal surface incisal to the cingulum. Analysis was run and stress distribution pattern was studied.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Maximum stresses in the radicular tooth structure for fiber post were higher than that for metal post. In the former models, stresses in the tooth structure were slightly reduced with increase in fiber post diameter.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  To reduce stress in the remaining radicular tooth structure, it is better to use a fiber post of a large diameter.
authors.affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Yenepoya Dental College, Mangalore, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: Pradeep
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Kumar
authors.affiliation: Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Shri Dharmasthala Manjunatheshwara College of Dental Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, India.
authors.forename: R Nageswar
authors.initials: RN
authors.lastname: Rao
keywords: Fiber post; finite element analysis; metal post; post diameter
references.citation: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Mar;115(3):267-74
references.pmid: 10066974
references.citation: J Conserv Dent. 2010 Jan;13(1):28-33
references.pmid: 20582216
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 1996 Feb;75(2):140-7
references.pmid: 8667271
references.citation: Biomaterials. 2002 Jul;23(13):2667-82
references.pmid: 12059016
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 2005 Oct;94(4):321-9
references.pmid: 16198168
references.citation: Dent Mater J. 2009 Nov;28(6):671-8
references.pmid: 20019417
references.citation: Oper Dent. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):47-54
references.pmid: 16536193
references.citation: J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Oct;72(4):367-72
references.pmid: 7990041
references.citation: Dent Mater J. 2008 Jan;27(1):49-55
references.pmid: 18309611
references.citation: J Dent Res. 1983 Sep;62(9):1002-8
references.pmid: 6348112
references.citation: Eur J Dent. 2007 Apr;1(2):67-71
references.pmid: 19212479
references.citation: J Oral Rehabil. 2009 Nov;36(11):821-30
references.pmid: 19840225
references.citation: J Biomech. 2005 Dec;38(12):2375-89
references.pmid: 16214485
references.citation: J Dent Res. 1983 Jun;62(6):760-3
references.pmid: 6343442
references.citation: J Endod. 1992 Nov;18(11):540-4
references.pmid: 1298790
references.citation: J Conserv Dent. 2012 Jul;15(3):223-7
references.pmid: 22876006
references.citation: Dent Mater. 2005 Aug;21(8):709-15
references.pmid: 16026666
references.citation: J Dent Res. 1981 Jul;60(7):1301-10
references.pmid: 7016944
references.citation: Indian J Dent Res. 2009 Apr-Jun;20(2):153-8
references.pmid: 19553714
references.citation: Dent Mater J. 2009 Mar;28(2):204-11
references.pmid: 19496401
references.citation: J Endod. 2002 Sep;28(9):629-33
references.pmid: 12236304
references.citation: J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Sep;30(9):936-43
references.pmid: 12950976