No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

(1) Background: The study aimed to compare and analyse the differences between the features of prefabricated fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) posts and custom-made FRC posts in the form of a tape and confirm the necessity of using FRC posts in teeth treated endodontically in comparison to direct reconstruction with a composite material. (2) Methods: Sixty premolars after endodontic treatment were used. The teeth were divided into four groups (n–15). Group 1: teeth with embedded prefabricated posts (Mirafit White); group 2: teeth with embedded prefabricated posts (Rebilda); group 3 teeth with embedded custom-made posts in the form of a tape (EverStick); group 4: teeth without a post restored with composite material. The compressive strength of the teeth was tested using the Instron-5944 testing machine until the sample broke. The crystal structure of the investigated posts was detected with the X-ray diffractometer (3) Results: During the experiment, the maximum values of forces at which the damage of the restored premolar teeth after endodontic treatment occurred were obtained. The best results were obtained for teeth rebuilt with Rebilda Posts (1119 N), while teeth with cemented Mirafit White posts were the weakest (968N). Teeth without an embedded FRC post, rebuilt only with light-cured composite material, obtained the lowest value—859 N. (4) Conclusions: The use of FRC posts increases the resistance to damage of an endodontically treated tooth when compared to direct restoration with light-cured composite material.