This study investigated the influence of clinical experience in relation to the efficacy and effectiveness of removal of 2 different fiber posts.In total, 48 intact single-rooted teeth were treated endodontically and obturated. Then, 10-mm post spaces were prepared, and fiber posts were luted. Twenty-four #1 D.T. Light-Posts were used in group 1, and 24 #2 Hi-Rem Prosthetic Posts were used in group 2. A pullout test (n = 8 per group) was performed by using a universal testing machine to compare bond strength. Then, fiber post removal efficacy and efficiency were tested. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 8) according to operator experience. In group 1, fiber posts were removed with an ultrasonic handpiece by using a #3 Start-X tip. In group 2, a size 25/0.04 ProFile was used to remove the central soft polymer macrofiber, and a #2 Largo drill was used to remove the fiber post and luting cement remnants. Post removal times were recorded to evaluate efficacy. Weight change was determined, and post space walls were analyzed microscopically to evaluate effectiveness.Bond strength did not differ significantly (P = .7569) between post systems. Post hoc Tukey tests indicated that removal time was affected significantly by operator experience in group 1 (P < .001) but not in group 2. Weight change was affected significantly by experience level in both groups. No difference in post space wall characteristics was observed between subgroups.The Hi-Rem post was easier to remove than the D.T Light-Post.

Evaluation of a simplified fiber post removal system.

SCOTTI, Nicola;ALOVISI, MARIO;PASQUALINI, Damiano;BERUTTI, Elio
2013-01-01

Abstract

This study investigated the influence of clinical experience in relation to the efficacy and effectiveness of removal of 2 different fiber posts.In total, 48 intact single-rooted teeth were treated endodontically and obturated. Then, 10-mm post spaces were prepared, and fiber posts were luted. Twenty-four #1 D.T. Light-Posts were used in group 1, and 24 #2 Hi-Rem Prosthetic Posts were used in group 2. A pullout test (n = 8 per group) was performed by using a universal testing machine to compare bond strength. Then, fiber post removal efficacy and efficiency were tested. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 8) according to operator experience. In group 1, fiber posts were removed with an ultrasonic handpiece by using a #3 Start-X tip. In group 2, a size 25/0.04 ProFile was used to remove the central soft polymer macrofiber, and a #2 Largo drill was used to remove the fiber post and luting cement remnants. Post removal times were recorded to evaluate efficacy. Weight change was determined, and post space walls were analyzed microscopically to evaluate effectiveness.Bond strength did not differ significantly (P = .7569) between post systems. Post hoc Tukey tests indicated that removal time was affected significantly by operator experience in group 1 (P < .001) but not in group 2. Weight change was affected significantly by experience level in both groups. No difference in post space wall characteristics was observed between subgroups.The Hi-Rem post was easier to remove than the D.T Light-Post.
2013
39
11
1431
1434
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.005
fiber post; operator experience; post removal; pull-out; weight change
N. Scotti;E. Bergantin;M. Alovisi;D. Pasqualini;E. Berutti
File in questo prodotto:
File Dimensione Formato  
accesso riservato.pdf

Accesso riservato

Tipo di file: PDF EDITORIALE
Dimensione 95.8 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
95.8 kB Adobe PDF   Visualizza/Apri   Richiedi una copia
Scotti_JOE_Nov2013.pdf

Open Access dal 01/12/2014

Tipo di file: POSTPRINT (VERSIONE FINALE DELL’AUTORE)
Dimensione 499.12 kB
Formato Adobe PDF
499.12 kB Adobe PDF Visualizza/Apri

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/2318/147447
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? 11
  • Scopus 25
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 24
social impact