Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  7 (2022)
Volume  6 (2021)
Volume  5 (2020)
Volume  4 (2019)
Volume  3 (2018)
Volume  2 (2017)
Volume  1 (2016)
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 1 ( January-June, 2022 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Stress Distribution in Teeth Restored with Different Posts Using Single or Multi-post Technique: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis

Stuti Kedia, Indiresha Narayana, Rajatha Vijay Shetty, Eva Shukla, Dinesh Kalasaiah

Keywords : Endodontically treated tooth, EverStick post, Fiber-reinforced composite post, Multiple-post, Single-post

Citation Information : Kedia S, Narayana I, Shetty RV, Shukla E, Kalasaiah D. Stress Distribution in Teeth Restored with Different Posts Using Single or Multi-post Technique: A Three-dimensional Finite Element Analysis. Cons Dent Endod J 2022; 7 (1):1-6.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10048-0110

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-04-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Abstract

Background: The reconstruction of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) is frequently required before the accomplishment of a definitive restoration, especially when the remaining coronal tooth structure is inadequate to provide retention and resistance form for the restoration. Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the stress distribution in premolar teeth restored with different posts using a single or multi-post technique with the help of three-dimensional (3D) finite element analysis (FEA). Materials and methods: The FEA was used in the investigation. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan of mandibular 1st premolar was used to create a geometric model. With the help of HyperMesh software version 13.0, four finite element models were created. Model-1, endodontically treated mandibular premolar with single conventional fiber post (0.8 GC Fiber Post, GC Europe, Leuven, Belgium), Model-2, endodontically treated mandibular premolar with single everStick post (0.9 everStick POST, GC Europe, Belgium), Model-3, endodontically treated mandibular premolar with multiple conventional fiber posts, and Model-4, endodontically treated mandibular premolar with multiple everStick posts. ANSYS software version 12.1 was used for FEA. Results: Following the analysis, von Mises stress (VMS) and principal stress values were obtained. Maximum VMS values were obtained on the buccal cusp of the crown. Between conventional fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post and everStick post, everStick post showed less stress, whereas between single and multiple post models, multiple post models showed more stress. The Principal stress values showed that the stress distribution within the crown, dentin, and posts was not significant to cause fracture of these materials. Conclusion: Within the limitation of the study, and from the simulation results and summary table following conclusions were made: • Stresses are less in everStick post compared to conventional FRC post. • Single post showed lesser stress compared to multi-post method. Clinical significance: Strengthening ETT with the use of single or multiple smaller diameter posts applying a minimally invasive approach for post space preparation. The study of stress distribution will help us in determining the failure criterion that leads to ETT fracture. It is significant because fracture is one of the most common causes of failure of ETT.

PDF Share
  1. Al-Omiri MK, Rayyan MR, Abu-Hammad O. Stress analysis of endodontically treated teeth restored with post-retained crowns: A finite element analysis study. J Am Dent Assoc 2011;142(3):289–300. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2011.0168.
  2. Mishra R, Shetty VS, D'Costa VF, et al. Evolution of Posts – from rigidity to flexibility. Int J Sci Res 2017;6(5):2671–2677. Available from: https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v6i5/ART20173990.pdf.
  3. Ferrari M, Sorrentino R, Zarone F, et al. Non-linear viscoelastic finite element analysis of the effect of the length of glass fiber posts on the biomechanical behaviour of directly restored incisors and surrounding alveolar bone. Dent Mater J 2008;27(4):485–498. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.27.485.
  4. Naumann M, Preuss A, Frankenberger R. Reinforcement effect of adhesively luted fiber reinforced composite versus titanium posts. Dent Mater 2007;23(2):138–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.01.002.
  5. Lassila LVJ, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, et al. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):29–36. DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00065-4.
  6. Akkayan B, Gülmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87(4):431–437. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2002.123227.
  7. Kalkan M, Usumez A, Ozturk AN, et al. Bond strength between root dentin and three glass-fiber post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2006;96(1):41–46. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2006.05.005.
  8. Maceri F, Martignoni M, Vairo G. Mechanical behaviour of endodontic restorations with multiple prefabricated posts: A finite-element approach. J Biomech 2007;40(11):2386–2398. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2006.11.018.
  9. Fráter M, Forster A, Jantyik A, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of premolar teeth restored with fibre-reinforced composite posts using a single or a multi-post technique. Aust Endod J 2017;43(1):16–22. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12150.
  10. Wang CH, Du JK, Li HY, et al. Factorial analysis of variables influencing mechanical characteristics of a post used to restore a root filled premolar using the finite element stress analysis combined with the Taguchi method. Int Endod J 2016;49(7):690–699. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12499.
  11. Gomes ÉA, Gueleri DB, da Silva SRC, et al. Three-dimensional finite element analysis of endodontically treated teeth with weakened radicular walls restored with different protocols. J Prosthet Dent 2015;114(3):383–389. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2015.03.004.
  12. Abramovitz L, Lev R, Fuss Z, Metzger Z. The unpredictability of seal after post space preparation: a fluid transport study. J Endod. 2001 Apr;27(4):292-5. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200104000-00016. PMID: 11485271.
  13. Forster A, Sáry T, Braunitzer G, et al. In vitro fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolar teeth restored with a direct layered fiber-reinforced composite post and core. J Adhes Sci Technol 2017;31(13):1454–1466. DOI: 10.1080/01694243.2016.1259758.
  14. Rajambigai A, Kumar A, Sabarinathan, et al. Comparison of stress distribution in a maxillary central incisor restored with two prefabricated post systems with and without ferrule using finite element method. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(9):ZC52–ZC55. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/19443.8492.
  15. Watanabe MU, Anchieta RB, Rocha EP et al. Influence of crown ferrule heights and dowel material selection on the mechanical behavior of root-filled teeth: A finite element analysis. J Prosthodont 2012;21(4):304–311. DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2011.00832.x.
  16. Pegorey A, Fambri L, Zappini G, et al. Finite element analysis of a glass fibre reinforced composite endodontic post. Biomaterials 2002;23(13):2667–2682. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0142-9612(01)00407-0.
  17. Vano M, Goracci C, Monticelli F, et al. The adhesion between fibre posts and composite resin cores: The evaluation of microtensile bond strength following various surface chemical treatments to posts. Int Endod J 2006;39(1):31–39. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01044.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.