Skip to content

Prefabricated Endodontic Posts: Glass Fiber Versus Titanium - A Randomized Controlled Pilot- Trial

Status
Completed
Phases
Phase 4
Study type
Interventional
Source
ClinicalTrials.gov
Registry ID
NCT01520766
Enrollment
91
Registered
2012-01-30
Start date
2003-01-31
Completion date
2011-08-31
Last updated
2012-01-31

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Endodontically Treated Teeth, Tooth Fractures

Keywords

glass fiber posts, titanium posts, postendodontic restoration, self-adhesive resin cement

Brief summary

A randomized parallel-group clinical pilot study was designed to evaluate the impact of glass fiber reinforced composite posts compared to prefabricated titanium posts on long term survival of adhesively restored endodontically treated abutment teeth.

Detailed description

Compared to vital teeth the complication rate of restorations fixed on endodontically treated abutment teeth is higher. Endodontically treated teeth are more prone to fracture due to the higher amount of calcified tooth structure loss. To level the biological short coming the choice of the mechanically appropriate post material is still a major concern. There a two major approaches. One is to use a rigid material to stiffen the post-endodontic complex and the other is to use a material which shows dentin-like material properties to allow the post-endodontic complex to flex under load. It was aim of the presented randomised controlled trial to compare the survival rates of abutment teeth self-adhesively restored with either prefabricated glass-fiber reinforced composite posts or titanium posts. The null-hypothesis was that there is no difference regarding survival rate between glass-fiber and titanium post restored endodontically treated abutment teeth with two or less remaining cavity walls.

Interventions

DEVICEprefabricated titanium post

posts: diameter of 1.4 mm; length of 13 mm adhesively luted within the root canal using self-adhesive resin cement and direct composite cores using an etch-and-rinse adhesive were built up crown preparation was performed, while the finishing line for the final restoration was set at least 2 mm apical the composite build-up in dentin to ensure a proper dentin ferrule design

DEVICEprefabricated glass fiber reinforced composite post

posts: diameter of 1.4 mm; length of 13 mm adhesively luted within the root canal using self-adhesive resin cement and direct composite cores using an etch-and-rinse adhesive were built up crown preparation was performed, while the finishing line for the final restoration was set at least 2 mm apical the composite build-up in dentin to ensure a proper dentin ferrule design

Sponsors

Charite University, Berlin, Germany
Lead SponsorOTHER

Study design

Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
SINGLE (Outcomes Assessor)

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
No

Inclusion criteria

* two or less cavity walls of the crown remaining, * residual root canal thickness at the orifice of more than 1 mm, * symptom free tooth with a root canal filling without radiologically visible periapical lesion, * minimum of radiologic root-to-alveolar bone ratio of 2 after prospective crown lengthening, * no or treated periodontitis with maximum probing depth of 4 mm and no bleeding on probing, * tooth mobility not more than score II, * willingness to return for follow-up examination for at least 5 years

Exclusion criteria

* tooth was aimed to serve as telescopic crown abutment

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frameDescription
loss of restoration for any reason84 months after post placementThe patients were recalled at 3, 6, 12 month and thereafter in al yearly recall up to 84 month after post placement for clinical examination. The clinical examination was performed by one blinded dentist.

Secondary

MeasureTime frameDescription
tooth loss, post debonding, post fracture, vertical or horizontal root fracture, endodontic or periradicular conditions requiring endodontic re-treatment, secondary caries and failure of core build-up and loss of restoration due to technical failures84 month after post placementThe clinical examination was performed by one blinded dentist. Follow-up examinations were performed with a dental probe to detect marginal gap formation of restorations. After 12 and 60 months radiographs were taken and examined by one operator (MN) to exclude the possibility of radiographic symptoms of failure, e.g. periodontal or periapical lesions.

Countries

Germany

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ClinicalTrials.gov · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026