Volume 9 / Issue 1 / January-April 2019

Volume 9 / Issue 1 / January-April 2019

V

olu

me

9 Issu

e 1

Ja

nu

ary

-Ap

ril 20

19

Pa

ge

s 1-***

Sa

ud

i En

do

do

ntic

Jo

urn

al

Sodium hypochlorite use, storage, and delivery methods: A Survey, Basudan SO.Saudi Endod J 2019;9:27-32

14 © 2019 Saudi Endodontic Journal | Published by Wolters Kluwer ‑ Medknow

Restorative methods to rehabilitate endodontically treated posterior teeth by students and new graduates of King Saud University: A survey study

Sahar A. AlZainDepartment of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

Original Article

INTRODUCTION

The prognosis of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) depends not only on the outcomes of endodontic treatment but also on the selected definitive restoration depending on the amount of remaining coronal tooth structure.

In the literature, different restorations of endodontically treated posterior teeth (ETPT) were recommended depending on the amount of destruction of the tooth structure. In posterior teeth, access cavity preparations were reported to result in a great flexure.[1] However,

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate the efficiency of dental students and new graduates of College of Dentistry, King Saud University, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to select the appropriate methods of restoring endodontically treated posterior teeth (ETPT) at different conditions of remaining sound tooth structure.Materials and Methods: A questionnaire was distributed among the 4th‑ and 5th‑year dental students and new graduates. Respondents were requested to indicate their gender and level of education and to select the preferred restoration of ETPT at different conditions. Results were analyzed using one‑way frequency and two‑way cross‑tabulations.Results: At >50% tooth remaining (condition A), 39.9% of the respondents preferred to use an amalgam restoration, while 30.9% preferred to use a restoration followed by a crown at 50% of remaining tooth (condition B). At <50% tooth remaining (condition C), 74.6% preferred to use a cast post‑and‑core and a crown. Respondents changed their choices of restoration to more advanced ones when teeth served as abutments for fixed or removable prostheses. Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the selected restorative method at condition A and both gender (P = 0.045) and level of education (P = 0.001), between the method of restoration at condition B and both the gender (P = 0.000) and the level of education (P = 0.003), and between the selected restorative method at condition C and the level of education (P = 0.000).Conclusions: Respondents demonstrated a high knowledge when selecting the appropriate method of restoring ETPT at different clinical conditions.

Keywords: Endodontically treated teeth, posterior teeth, remaining tooth structure, restoration

Abstract

Access this article onlineQuick Response Code:

Website:

www.saudiendodj.com

DOI:

10.4103/sej.sej_17_18

Address for correspondence: Dr. Sahar A. AlZain, Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. E‑mail: [email protected]

How to cite this article: AlZain SA. Restorative methods to rehabilitate endodontically treated posterior teeth by students and new graduates of King Saud University: A survey study. Saudi Endod J 2019;9:14‑20.

This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‑NonCommercial‑ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non‑commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

For reprints contact: [email protected]

AlZain: Restoration of endodontically treated teeth

Saudi Endodontic Journal | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | January‑April 2019 15

Gonzaga et al.[2] stated that ETPT in which the majority of coronal tooth structure remained intact except for the access opening cavity were found to be best restored with only amalgam restoration. When occlusal access cavities of the premolars were restored with glass ionomer and composite, fracture resistance was found to be close to that of the intact teeth; however, when those premolars fractured, they were found to be nonrestorable.[3] It was recommended that posterior teeth with a small cavity size (Class I, Class II mesio‑occlusal/disto‑occlusal, or Class II mesio‑occluso‑distal [MOD]) be restored using a conservative approach such as direct composite or inlay restorations.[4] The fracture strength of endodontically treated (ET) maxillary premolars, with MOD and access cavities, restored with conventional amalgam, bonded amalgam, and composite resin, did not differ significantly.[5] Restorations of ETPT with cusp coverage should be considered to assure long‑term success of the tooth.[1] A large cavity size should be restored with onlay restoration.[4]

A greater dentin surface area is available in the posterior teeth than that in the anterior teeth. Hence, a bonded build‑up core is preferable to the conventional post‑and‑core systems.[6] Sorrentino et al.[7] stated that “direct restoration of premolars with MOD cavity with fiber post and composite resin without crown coverage might be considered a valid alternative to the unconservative crown restoration.” However, bonded restoration with no crown was found to adversely affect the long‑term success of the restoration in patients who had excessive biting forces or para‑functional habits.[7]

Teeth with a remaining intermediary coronal tooth structure often required the use of prefabricated fiber posts and direct composite restorations.[2,4]

Extensive loss of coronal tooth structure resulted in an increase in cusp deflection.[8] When little or no coronal tooth structure remained, the use of intra‑canal post‑and‑core was considered mandatory to retain the coronal restoration.[2,4] However, molars sometimes do not require post‑and‑core because of their bulk tooth structure and large pulp chamber that can retain a core.[2] Moreover, molars are more subject to vertical forces due to their position in the dental arch. On the other hand, premolars have less amount of coronal tooth structure and a smaller pulp chamber than molars. Thus, they require posts and cores.[2] However, some anatomical features should be considered during intra‑radicular preparation of premolars such as root taper and curvature, thin mesiodistal root structure, and proximal invaginations.[2]

The 2‑mm ferrule effect in the ET premolars was found to positively affect the fracture strength of the fiber post.[9] It was found that post length in the canal did not improve the fracture strength of the post when the ferrule length was 2 mm.[9]

Clinical experience as well as theoretical knowledge of the most appropriate method of restoration of ETT with different clinical conditions by dental students and new graduates is mandatory. Currently, there is no published data concerning Saudi dental students and new graduates on this topic. Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of dental students and new graduates of College of Dentistry at King Saud University in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, to select the appropriate methods of restoring ETPT at different conditions of remaining sound tooth structure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A questionnaire was designed, validated, and distributed among the 4th‑ and 5th‑year dental students and new graduates of the College of Dentistry, King Saud University, in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia as part of course requirement. Respondents were directly approached and asked to respond to the questionnaire. Questionnaires were then collected, and the response rate was 98%. Respondents were asked to indicate their gender and level of education. Only students “at 4th‑ and 5th‑year of dental education” who were pursuing clinical training in prosthodontics were included in this study. Students were approached at the end of the academic year for their responses based on their theoretical background and clinical experience throughout the year. The questionnaire contained different restorative treatment methods of restoration of ETPT at different conditions (percentages) of remaining sound tooth structure (>50%, =50%, and <50%). One or more of these conditions (percentages) were used in some studies as a guide to restore teeth.[1,4] Respondents were asked to indicate their preferred restorative method of those teeth. They were also asked to indicate whether their chosen method would change if the same tooth at the same condition of remaining sound tooth structure was used as an abutment for fixed or removable partial dentures (FPDs/RPDs). A total of 233 questionnaires were collected.

Statistical analysisThe statistical analysis was performed using IBM Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (IBM SPSS version 20) (Chicago, IL, USA). One‑way frequency tables were generated to summarize the responses. Two‑way cross‑tabulations were analyzed to show the associations


16 Saudi Endodontic Journal | Volume 9 | Issue 1 | January‑April 2019

between the preferred method of restoration and the gender and level of education.

RESULTS

Condition A (more than 50% of sound tooth structure remaining)Results showed that 39.9% of the respondents preferred to use only an amalgam restoration and 25.3% selected to use a tooth‑colored restoration [Table 1]. Female (47.1%) and 4th‑year students (56.4%) preferred to use an amalgam restoration, while male (28.7%) and 5th‑year students (33.3%) preferred to use a tooth‑colored restoration [Tables 2 and 3]. Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the se lected restorat ive method and gender (P = 0.045) and level of education (P = 0.001). When the same tooth is to be used as an abutment for an FPD/RPD, respondents preferred to restore it with amalgam/tooth‑colored restorations followed by crown restorations (33.9%) [Table 4]. This method was preferred more by male (36.8%) and 4th‑ and 5th‑year students (33.8% and 39.3%, respectively) [Tables 5 and 6]. Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship only between the selected restorative method and the level of education only when the tooth is to be used as an abutment for FPD/RPD (P = 0.015).

Condition B (about 50% of sound tooth structure remaining)The majority of respondents (30.9%) preferred to restore the teeth with amalgam/tooth‑colored restoration followed by a crown restoration [Table 1]. This selection was preferred more by female students (35.6%) and new graduates (41.3%) [Tables 2 and 3]. Moreover, a prefabricated stainless steel post with a build‑up core material (amalgam/tooth‑colored) and a crown were preferred by 22.3% of respondents more by male respondents (28.7%) and 5th‑year students (36.6%). Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the selected restorative method and both the gender (P = 0.000) and the level of education (P = 0.003). When the same tooth is to be used as an abutment for FPD/RPD, most of respondents (39.3%) preferred to use a prefabricated stainless steel post with a build‑up core material and a crown [Table 4]. This restoration was preferred more by male (43.6%) and 5th‑year students (55.7%) [Tables 5 and 6]. Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship only between the selected restorative method and the level of education only when the tooth is to be used as an abutment for FPD/RPD (P = 0.023).

Condition C (less than 50% of sound tooth structure remaining)Results showed that 74.6% of the respondents preferred to use a cast post‑and‑core and a crown restoration [Table 1]. This method was comparably preferred by both genders and more by 5th‑year students (92.2%) [Tables 2 and 3]. Chi‑square analysis demonstrated a statistically significant relationship between the selected restorative method and the level of education (P = 0.000). When the same tooth is to be used as an abutment for FPD/RPD, 85.2% of respondents preferred to use a cast post‑and‑core and a crown restoration [Table 4]. This method was comparably preferred by both genders [Table 5] and more by 5th‑year students (93.4%) [Table 6]. No statistically significant relationship existed between the selected restoration and the gender or level of education when the tooth is to be used as an abutment for FPD/RPD (P = 0.051).

DISCUSSION

The majority of respondents in the present study selected to restore ETPT that had a large amount of coronal tooth structure remaining with an amalgam and tooth‑colored restorations (39.9% and 25.3%, respectively). This was supported by the study of Gonzaga et al.,[2] who recommended using only a direct composite resin or an amalgam restoration to restore the endodontic access, with very good prognosis.[2] They stated that “when tooth‑reinforcing structures, such as marginal ridges, are still present and the tooth displays a deep pulp chamber, only a composite resin restoration may be used without the need of an intra‑radicular post.”[2]

Table 1: Overall frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different methods of restoring endodontically treated posterior teeth with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structureMethod of restoration Amount (%) of remaining

sound tooth structureA (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)

Only amalgam restoration 93 (39.9) 4 (1.71) 1 (0.42)Only tooth-colored restoration 59 (25.3) 0 0Cast onlay restoration 23 (9.87) 24 (10.3) 1 (0.42)Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown

43 (18.4) 72 (30.9) 4 (1.71)

Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium) and tooth-colored restoration

4 (1.71) 14 (6.00) 1 (0.42)

Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium), tooth-colored restoration, and crown

2 (0.85) 28 (12.0) 6 (2.57)

Stainless steel post and amalgam/tooth-colored restoration

2 (0.85) 35 (15.0) 4 (1.71)

Stainless steel post, amalgam/tooth-colored restoration, and crown

3 (1.28) 52 (22.3) 42 (18.0)

Cast post-and-core and crown 4 (1.71) 4 (1.71) 174 (74.6)Total 233 233 233

χ2 df ≥2



Onlay restoration was used in this study at conditions A and B by 9.87% and 10.3%, respectively. It was found that onlay restorations with cusps coverage may be used to restore ETT in which one wall was present and could be preserved.[2]

The amalgam or the tooth‑colored restoration was further protected by a crown at conditions A (18.4%) and B (30.9%) in this study. Full‑coverage restoration for ETPT exhibited a higher success rate than that of teeth with intra‑coronal restoration.[10]

In the present study, the use of posts (either prefabricated or custom cast) was preferred to restore ETT at conditions B and C more than those at condition A. It was stated that “posts may not be used for restoration of ETT unless there is an extensive destruction of coronal tooth structure,

resulting in an insufficient retention for the core is obvious.”[4] In this study, a fiber post was used at condition B with and without a crown (6% and 12%, respectively). The highest stress concentration was found when using a cast post‑and‑core.[11] Metal and zirconia are stiffer than dentin and have higher moduli of elasticity. Thus, they can increase the risk of a vertical root fracture that is not repairable.[6] On the other hand, a fiber‑reinforced post provides stress distribution similar to a sound tooth with a modulus of elasticity closer to dentin.[6,12] A fiber post was found to induce less stress concentration at the apical area, whereas more stress concentration was reported in the cervical region.[6] This may lead to post fracture, debonding of core materials, and loss of retention all of which are repairable.[6] However, Zicari et al.[13] did a clinical study and concluded that both cast gold and glass fiber post‑and‑core performed well after 3 years of follow‑up.

Table 2: Frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different restorative methods of endodontically treated posterior teeth with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure compared with genderMethod of restoration Amount (%) of remaining sound tooth structure

A (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)Male Female Male Female Male Female

Only amalgam restoration 52 (35.6) 41 (47.1) 3 (2.00) 1 (1.1) 1 (0.6) 0Only tooth-colored restoration 42 (28.7) 17 (19.5) 0 0 0 0Cast onlay restoration 15 (10.2) 8 (9.1) 8 (5.4) 16 (18.3) 0 1 (1.1)Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown 31 (21.2) 12 (13.7) 41 (28) 31 (35.6) 2 (1.3) 2 (2.2)Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium and tooth-colored restoration

0 4 (4.5) 11 (7.5) 3 (3.4) 1 (0.6) 0


1 (0.6) 1 (1.1) 9 (6.1) 19 (21.8) 2 (1.3) 4 (4.5)


0 2 (2.2) 30 (20.5) 5 (5.7) 2 (1.3) 2 (2.2)


2 (1.3) 1 (1.1) 42 (28.7) 10 (11.4) 28 (19.1) 14 (16)

Cast post-and-core and crown 3 (2) 1 (1.1) 2 (1.3) 2 (2.2) 110 (75.3) 64 (73.5)P 0.045 0.000 0.547

χ2 df ≥2

Table 3: Frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different restorative methods of endodontically treated posterior with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure compared with level of education (4th‑year, 5th‑year, and new graduates)Method of restoration Amount (%) of remaining sound tooth structure

A (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)4th‑year 5th‑year NG 4th‑year 5th‑year NG 4th‑year 5th‑year NG

Only amalgam restoration 48 (56.4) 21 (23.3) 24 (41.3) 1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 2 (3.4) 1 (1.1) 0 0Only tooth-colored restoration 16 (18.8) 30 (33.3) 13 (22.4) 0 0 0 0 0 0Cast onlay restoration 4 (4.7) 9 (10.00) 10 (17.2) 12 (14.1) 3 (3.3) 9 (15.5) 0 1 (1.1) 0Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown 13 (15.2) 23 (25.5) 7 (12.00) 29 (34.1) 19 (21.1) 24 (41.3) 2 (2.3) 0 2 (3.4)Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium) and tooth-colored restoration

1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 2 (3.4) 5 (5.8) 6 (6.6) 3 (5.1) 1 (1.1) 0 0


0 2 (2.2) 0 9 (10.5) 13 (14.4) 6 (10.3) 1 (1.1) 3 (3.3) 2 (3.4)


1 (1.1) 1 (1.1) 0 16 (18.8) 13 (14.4) 6 (10.3) 3 (3.5) 0 1 (1.7)


0 3 (3.3) 0 13 (15.2) 33 (36.6) 6 (10.3) 28 (32.9) 3 (3.3) 11 (18.9)

Cast post-and-core and crown 2 (2.3) 0 2 (3.4) 0 2 (2.2) 2 (3.4) 49 (57.6) 83 (92.2) 42 (72.4)P 0.001 0.003 0.000

χ2 df ≥2. NG: New graduates



It is important to consider the ferrule effect when preparing ETT. It is actually achieved by having 2 mm of coronal tooth structure above the preparation margin. It optimizes tooth biomechanical behavior.[4,8] The ferrule effect greatly increases the strength of the tooth and prevents root fractures.[4,8,14] It embraces the coronal aspect of the tooth by the encircling band of cast metal.

A fiber‑reinforced composite restoration with the polyethylene ribbon fibers was introduced to restore

severely damaged ETPT. It resulted in a stress distribution that is more similar to that in a natural tooth.[12,15] Inserting the polyethylene ribbon fiber buccolingually on the occlusal surface of ET premolars with MOD cavities resulted in increased fracture strength.[16]

Goga and Purton[8] recommended to avoid using ETT as distal abutments of cantilever FPDs. Any increase in stresses in the abutments compromises the biologic and restorative structures.[11] Meyenberg[6] concluded that metallic posts are preferred over fiber posts to restore abutments with large defects that require crown restorations in long‑span FPDs or in cases in which heavy loads are expected. In the present study, more respondents preferred to use cast post‑and‑core and crown restorations to restore ETT serving as abutments for FPDs/RPDs at condition C (85.2%) than those not serving as abutments for any prostheses (74.6%). This reflected the respondents’ awareness of the need to give more attention to those teeth serving as abutments for FPDs/RPDs.

The amount of remaining coronal tooth structure of ETT is very critical when the tooth is used an abutment for an RPD. The possible need for post placement should be considered.[8] However, regular maintenance recalls were strongly recommended.[8] Respondents in the present study preferred to change their restorative methods of ETT at all conditions when teeth would serve as abutments for FPRs/RPDs to more advanced ones. A statistically significant relationship existed between the selected restorative method and the level of education at conditions A and B.

In a survey study of 438 ETT (anterior and posterior teeth), adequate coronal restorations demonstrated significantly better periapical status (82.2%) than those of inadequate

Table 4: Overall frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different methods of restoring endodontically treated posterior teeth with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure when the tooth is used as an abutment for a fixed or removable partial dentureMethod of restoration Amount (%) of remaining sound

tooth structureA (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)

Only amalgam restoration 43 (27.5) 0 1 (0.64)Only tooth-colored restoration 10 (6.41) 0 0Cast onlay restoration 18 (11.5) 1 (0.64) 0Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown

53 (33.9) 19 (12.2) 2 (1.28)


2 (1.28) 5 (3.22) 1 (0.64)


7 (4.48) 23 (14.8) 4 (2.56)


7 (4.48) 30 (19.3) 1 (0.64)


11 (7.05) 61 (39.3) 14 (8.97)

Cast post-and-core and crown 5 (3.20) 16 (10.3) 133 (85.2)Total 156 155* 156

χ2 df ≥2. *One respondent preferred to change restorative method when the tooth at condition B is used as an abutment for FPD/RPD but did not select any of the methods. RPD: Removable partial denture, FPD: Fixed partial denture

Table 5: Frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different restorative methods of endodontically treated posterior teeth with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure when the tooth is used as an abutment for a fixed or removable partial denture compared with genderMethod of restoration Amount (%) of remaining sound tooth structure

A (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)Male Female Male Female Male Female

Only amalgam restoration 32 (33.6) 11 (18.00) 0 0 0 1 (1.6)Only tooth-colored restoration 6 (6.3) 4 (6.5) 0 0 0 0Cast onlay restoration 7 (7.3) 11 (18.00) 1 (1.00) 0 0 0Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown 35 (36.8) 18 (29.5) 11 (11.7) 8 (13.1) 1 (1.00) 1 (1.6)Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium) and tooth-colored restoration

0 2 (3.2) 5 (5.3) 0 1 (1.00) 0

Tooth-colored post (fiber/zirconium), tooth-colored restoration and crown

3 (3.1) 4 (6.5) 9 (9.5) 14 (22.9) 1 (1.00) 3 (4.9)

Stainless steel post and amalgam/tooth-colored restoration 3 (3.1) 4 (6.5) 18 (19.1) 12 (19.6) 1 (1.00) 0Stainless steel post, amalgam/tooth-colored restoration, and crown

7 (7.3) 4 (6.5) 41 (43.6) 20 (32.7) 12 (12.6) 2 (3.2)

Cast post-and-core and crown 2 (2.1) 3 (4.9) 9 (9.5) 7 (11.4) 79 (83.1) 54 (88.5)P 0.095 0.140 0.182

χ2 df ≥2



coronal restorations (37.2%).[17] Both well‑performed endodontic and well‑sealing restorative treatment of teeth play a significant role in obtaining an optimal success rate of ETT.[17]

In this study, the respondents’ knowledge of the most appropriate restorative method of ETT with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure was evident. The preferred restorative method of ETT may be influenced by both by gender and level of the education. A statistically significant relationship existed between the preferred method and both the gender and level of education at conditions A and B and level of education at conditions C.

The decision to maintain an endodontically involved tooth or do extraction is complex, so each patient should be examined and evaluated to come‑up with a long‑term treatment outcome.[18]

In general, the clinician should carefully evaluate and consider all clinical and radiographic factors to provide the best restorative treatment for ETT, assuring a good prognosis and higher clinical longevity.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this study showed that selection of the most appropriate restorative method of ETPT, at different clinical conditions, by students and new graduates of King Saud University was evident. A periodic evaluation of clinical experiences of students and new graduates is recommended to assure proper delivery of dental treatments.

AcknowledgmentI acknowledge Mr. Nassr Mefleh, the Biostatistician at the College of Dentistry Research Center (CDRC), for his help in the statistical analysis.

Financial support and sponsorshipNil.

Conflicts of interestThere are no conflicts of interest.

REFERENCES

1. Vârlan C, Dimitriu B, Vârlan V, Bodnar D, Suciu I. Current opinions concerning the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: Basic principles. J Med Life 2009;2:165‑72.

2. Gonzaga CC, de Campos EA, Barato‑Filho F. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Rev Sul‑Bras Odontol 2011;8:33‑46.

3. Wu Y, Cathro P, Marino V. Fracture resistance and pattern of the upper premolars with obturated canals and restored endodontic occlusal access cavities. J Biomed Res 2010;24:474‑8.

4. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review of the literature, part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int 2008;39:117‑29.

5. Pradeep P, Kumar VS, Bantwal SR, Gulati GS. Fracture strength of endodontically treated premolars: An in vitro evaluation. J Int Oral Health 2013;5:9‑17.

6. Meyenberg K. The ideal restoration of endodontically treated teeth – Structural and esthetic considerations: A review of the literature and clinical guidelines for the restorative clinician. Eur J Esthet Dent 2013;8:238‑68.

7. Sorrentino R, Salameh Z, Zarone F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Effect of post‑retained composite restoration of MOD preparations on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:49‑56.

8. Goga R, Purton DG. The use of endodontically treated teeth as abutments for crowns, fixed partial dentures, or removable partial dentures: A literature review. Quintessence Int 2007;38:e106‑11.

9. Schiavetti R, Sannino G. In vitro evaluation of ferrule effect and depth

Table 6: Frequency and percentage of respondents selecting different restorative methods of endodontically treated posterior teeth with different amounts of remaining sound tooth structure when the tooth is used as an abutment for a fixed or removable partial denture compared with level of education (4th‑year, 5th‑year, and new graduates)Method of restoration Amount (%) of remaining sound tooth structure

A (>50%) B (50%) C (<50%)4th‑year 5th‑year NG 4th‑year 5th‑year NG 4th‑year 5th‑year NG

Only amalgam restoration 25 (40.3) 8 (13.1) 10 (30.3) 0 0 0 0 0 1 (3.00)Only tooth-colored restoration 5 (8) 3 (4.9) 2 (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0Cast onlay restoration 4 (6.4) 10 (16.3) 4 (12.1) 1 (1.6) 0 0 0 0 0Amalgam/tooth-colored restoration and crown

21 (33.8) 24 (39.3) 8 (24.2) 9 (14.7) 3 (4.9) 7 (21.2) 0 1 (1.6) 1 (3.00)


2 (3.2) 0 0 2 (3.2) 1 (1.6) 2 (6.00) 1 (1.6) 0 0


1 (1.6) 2 (3.2) 4 (12.1) 12 (19.6) 8 (13.1) 3 (9.00) 1 (1.6) 3 (4.9) 0


1 (1.6) 3 (4.9) 3 (9.00) 17 (27.8) 9 (14.7) 4 (12.1) 1 (1.6) 0 0


2 (3.2) 8 (13.1) 1 (3.00) 16 (26.2) 34 (55.7) 11 (33.3) 10 (16.1) 0 4 (12.1)

Cast post-and-core and crown 1 (1.6) 3 (4.9) 1 (3.00) 4 (6.5) 6 (9.8) 6 (18.1) 49 (79.00) 57 (93.4) 27 (81.8)P 0.015 0.023 0.051

χ2 df ≥2. NG: New graduates



of post insertion on fracture resistance of fiber posts. Comput Math Methods Med 2012;2012:816481.

10. Spielman H, Schaffer SB, Cohen MG, Wu H, Vena DA, Collie D, et al. Restorative outcomes for endodontically treated teeth in the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network. J Am Dent Assoc 2012;143:746‑55.

11. Manda M, Galanis C, Venetsanos D, Provatidis C, Koidis P. The effect of select pulp cavity conditions on stress field development in distal abutments in two types of fixed dental prostheses. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:118‑26.

12. Eraslan Ö, Eraslan O, Eskitaşcıoğlu G, Belli S. Conservative restoration of severely damaged endodontically treated premolar teeth: A FEM study. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15:403‑8.

13. Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Debels E, Lesaffre E, Naert I. An up to 3‑year controlled clinical trial comparing the outcome of glass fiber posts and composite cores with gold alloy‑based posts and cores for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:363‑72.

14. Baba NZ, Golden G, Goodacre CJ. Nonmetallic prefabricated dowels: A review of compositions, properties, laboratory, and clinical test results. J Prosthodont 2009;18:527‑36.

15. Meshram P, Kamra AI, Meshram V. Reinforcement effect of polyethylene fiber in root‑filled mandibular molar: An in vitro comparative evaluation of two different techniques of placement. Ann Essences Dent 2010;2:17‑22.

16. Sengun A, Cobankara FK, Orucoglu H. Effect of a new restoration technique on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol 2008;24:214‑9.

17. Khullar P, Raisingani D, Gupta S, Khatri RK. A survey report on effect of root canal fillings and coronal restorations on the periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in a selected group of population. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2013;6:89‑94.

18. Al Shareef A, Abdelhamied S. Endodontic therapy and restorative rehabilitation versus extraction and implant replacement. Saudi Endod J 2013;3:107‑13.

Date post:	12-Mar-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Volume 9 / Issue 1 / January-April 2019

Documents