Scholarlink

Objectives <p>This <i>in vitro</i> study evaluated the effect of simulated root canal morphology, post space depth (PSD), and type of glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) on the fracture strength and failure mode of post-core buildups.</p> Materials and methods <p>A total of 168 3D-printed maxillary premolar root models were allocated into 24 groups (<i>n</i> = 7) based on simulated canal morphology (single-circle, oval, double-circle), PSD (4&#xa0;mm, 6&#xa0;mm), and GFRC type (everStick, everX-flow, everX-posterior), with Itena post as the control. A standardized adhesive protocol was used, followed by GFRC application and dual-cure core buildup. Fracture strength was tested under a 45° compressive load. Failure modes were categorized as favorable (type I, II, III) or unfavorable (type IV). Data were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, independent t-tests, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05).</p> Results <p>GFRC type significantly affected fracture strength (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), whereas neither simulated canal morphology nor PSD showed a significant effect. At 4&#xa0;mm PSD, everX-flow exhibited significantly lower fracture strength than Itena and everStick posts in single-circle and oval canal models (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). At 6&#xa0;mm PSD, everX-flow recorded the lowest fracture strength in single-circle canal models (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). Failure mode was significantly influenced by PSD (<i>p</i> = 0.01) and GFRC type (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). A 6&#xa0;mm PSD was associated with a higher percentage of each favorable failure type compared to 4&#xa0;mm PSD. EverStick and Itena posts showed the highest percentage of favorable failures.</p> Conclusions <p>The intra-canal reinforcing material is the primary determinant of the fracture performance of post-core buildups. The mechanical reinforcement materials of everStick and everX-posterior posts but not everX-flow are comparable to that of Itena post.</p> Clinical relevance <p>Everstick and everX-posterior can replace Itena posts as safe reinforcing materials in single-canaled premolars.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of simulated root canal morphology and post space depth on fracture performance of glass fiber-reinforced post-core buildups

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年12月17日

查看全文
  • Salma Magdy Wahby,
  • Khaled Aly Nour,
  • Omaima Hassan Ghallab,
  • Khaled Mohamed Adel

摘要

Objectives

This in vitro study evaluated the effect of simulated root canal morphology, post space depth (PSD), and type of glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) on the fracture strength and failure mode of post-core buildups.

Materials and methods

A total of 168 3D-printed maxillary premolar root models were allocated into 24 groups (n = 7) based on simulated canal morphology (single-circle, oval, double-circle), PSD (4 mm, 6 mm), and GFRC type (everStick, everX-flow, everX-posterior), with Itena post as the control. A standardized adhesive protocol was used, followed by GFRC application and dual-cure core buildup. Fracture strength was tested under a 45° compressive load. Failure modes were categorized as favorable (type I, II, III) or unfavorable (type IV). Data were analyzed using ANOVA with Tukey’s post hoc test, independent t-tests, and chi-square tests (α = 0.05).

Results

GFRC type significantly affected fracture strength (p < 0.001), whereas neither simulated canal morphology nor PSD showed a significant effect. At 4 mm PSD, everX-flow exhibited significantly lower fracture strength than Itena and everStick posts in single-circle and oval canal models (p < 0.05). At 6 mm PSD, everX-flow recorded the lowest fracture strength in single-circle canal models (p < 0.05). Failure mode was significantly influenced by PSD (p = 0.01) and GFRC type (p < 0.001). A 6 mm PSD was associated with a higher percentage of each favorable failure type compared to 4 mm PSD. EverStick and Itena posts showed the highest percentage of favorable failures.

Conclusions

The intra-canal reinforcing material is the primary determinant of the fracture performance of post-core buildups. The mechanical reinforcement materials of everStick and everX-posterior posts but not everX-flow are comparable to that of Itena post.

Clinical relevance

Everstick and everX-posterior can replace Itena posts as safe reinforcing materials in single-canaled premolars.