Clinical evaluation of root filled teeth restored with or without post-and-core systems in a specialist practice setting

AIM: To assess survival rates and complications of root-filled teeth restored with or without post-and-core systems over a mean observation period of >or=4 years. METHODOLOGY: A total of 325 single- and multirooted teeth in 183 subjects treated in a private practice were root filled and restored with either a cast post-and-core or with a prefabricated titanium post and composite core. Root-filled teeth without post-retained restorations served as controls. The restored teeth served as abutments for single unit metal-ceramic or composite crowns or fixed bridges. Teeth supporting cantilever bridges, overdentures or telescopic crowns were excluded. RESULTS: Seventeen teeth in 17 subjects were lost to follow-up (17/325: 5.2%). The mean observation period was 5.2 +/- 1.8 (SD) years for restorations with titanium posts, 6.2 +/- 2.0 (SD) years for cast post-and-cores and 4.4 +/- 1.7 (SD) years for teeth without posts. Overall, 54% of build-ups included the incorporation of a titanium post and 26.5% the cementation of a cast post-and-core. The remaining 19.5% of the teeth were restored without intraradicular retention. The adjusted 5-year tooth survival rate amounted to 92.5% for teeth restored with titanium posts, to 97.1% for teeth restored with cast post-and-cores and to 94.3% for teeth without post restorations, respectively. The most frequent complications included root fracture (6.2%), recurrent caries (1.9%), post-treatment periradicular disease (1.6%) and loss of retention (1.3%). CONCLUSION: Provided that high-quality root canal treatment and restorative protocols are implemented, high survival and low complication rates of single- and multirooted root-filled teeth used as abutments for fixed restorations can be expected after a mean observation period of >or=4 years.

Immediate shear bond strengths of a composite, a compomer and a glass ionomer to a ceramic substrate.

PURPOSE To determine the best-performing combination of three core buildup materials and three bonding materials based on their bond strength to ceramic blocks in vitro. MATERIALS AND METHODS The materials used for core buildup were a composite (Tetric EvoCeram), a compomer (Compoglass F), and a glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Fil Plus), and for bonding, a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Syntac), a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (ExciTE), and a single-step system (RelyX Unicem). Bond strength to ceramic blocks was determined by shear bond strength testing. Fracture behavior was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS The highest adhesive values between buildup and ceramic were obtained using the materials Compoglass F and Syntac, followed by Compoglass F and ExciTE. Among the two other core buildups, Tetric EvoCeram performed better than Ketac Fil Plus, which was independent of the bonding materials. Adhesive fractures were characteristically observed with Syntac and ExciTE, and cohesive fractures were characteristically observed with RelyX Unicem. CONCLUSION These data show that compomers bonded with a multistep adhesive system achieved statistically significantly higher shear bond strength than composites and glass-ionomer cements. Within the limitations inherent to this in vitro study, the use of compomers for core buildup can be recommended.