Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: A clinical study

Mehra, Manjul; Grover, Rashu; Pandit, I K; Srivastava, Nikhil; Gugnani, Neeraj

doi:10.4103/0970-4388.186749

Cited by 9 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The use of both glass and polyethylene FRC posts to restore grossly destroyed primary incisors is a challengeable treatment option. Mehra et al , reported one year data of 45 grossly decayed primary anterior teeth, which were endodontically treated and fiber posts (glass and polyethylene) placed in the canals ( 23 ). After an interval of 12 months, significant difference ( p <0.05) was observed between different FRC posts.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Moreover, marginal discoloration comparison was done after 12 months, and 20% of the teeth exhibited marginal discoloration in polyethylene FRC post group, while only 13.3% in glass FRC post group. Authors stated that durability of glass FRC posts may be attributed to the individual fiber quantity, composition of resin matrix (epoxy resin with approximately 65 vol% glass fiber content) and the adequate adhesion of the fibers to the polymer matrix ( 23 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: A review of the current literature

Mangoush¹,

Säilynoja²,

Prinssi³

et al. 2017

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundFiber reinforced composite (FRC) is a promising class of material that gives clinicians alternative treatment options. There are many FRC products available in the market based on either glass or polyethylene fiber type. The aim of this study was to present a comparison between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites based on available literature review.Material and MethodsA thorough literature search, with no limitation, was done up to June 2017. The range of relevant publications was surveyed using PubMed and Google Scholar. From the search results, articles related to our search terms were only considered. An assessment of these articles was done by two individuals in order to include only articles directly compare between glass and polyethylene FRCs. The search terms used were “fiber reinforced dental composites” and “glass and polyethylene fibers in dentistry”.ResultsThe search provided 276 titles. Full-text analysis was performed for 29 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Most were laboratory-based research with various test specimen designs prepared according to ISO standard or with extracted teeth and only three articles were clinical studies. Most of studies (n=23) found superior characteristics of glass FRCs over polyethylene FRCs.ConclusionsSignificant reinforcement differences between commercial glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites were found. Key words:Fiber reinforced composite, glass fiber, polyethylene fiber.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: A review of the current literature

Mangoush¹,

Säilynoja²,

Prinssi³

et al. 2017

J Clin Exp Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The glass fiber post has a modulus of elasticity (54 GPa) close to that in dentin (approximately 18 GPa; Lamichhane et al, 2014). It was lute with flowable composite in Group A (glass fiber post) as described in previous in vivo (Mehra et al, 2016; Sharaf, 2002; Subramaniam et al, 2008; Vafaei et al, 2016) and in vitro (Baghalian, Ranjpour, Hooshmand, Herman, & Ebrahimi, 2014; Memarpour et al, 2013; Sharaf, 2002) studies which had reported high success rates in this technique.…”

Section: The Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Mehra et al (2016) reported a 93.33% success rate in glass fiber post group after 12 months post‐treatment. The failures in their study had happened because of biting on hard food.…”

Section: The Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical and radiographic comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of restoring destroyed primary incisors using two different techniques—A pilot study

Ibrahim

Nourallah

2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The restoration of destroyed maxillary primary incisors is difficult because of the insufficient amount of coronal structure. This pilot study aimed to compare the efficacy of composite posts technique and glass fiber posts technique in restoring destroyed primary incisors. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six destroyed maxillary primary incisors in 11 children with early childhood caries were randomly assigned after endodontic treatment into two groups: glass fiber posts (n = 18) and composite resin posts (n = 18). Blinded clinical evaluation was made at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months and Blinded radiographic evaluation was made at 6 and 12 months. The evaluation was according to the FDI criteria. Data were analyzed with Fisher's exact test (α = .05). Result: After 12 months post-treatment, the success rates were 88.2% in glass fiber posts group and 70.6% in composite resin posts group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups according to the evaluation criteria (p-value >.05). Conclusion: Glass fiber posts technique and Composite posts technique may be used in the restoration of destroyed primary incisors. K E Y W O R D S composite resin post, destroyed primary incisors, early childhood caries, glass fiber post 1 | INTRODUCTION Early childhood caries (ECC) is the most common reason for the destruction of maxillary primary incisors (Ripa, 1988). According to the AAPD (American Academy of Paediatric Dentistry), ECC is the presence of one or more decayed, missing, or filled tooth surface in a 71 months old child or younger (American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry, 2016). ECC proceeds rapidly leading in its extreme cases to loss the full coronal structure (O'sullIvan & Tinanoff, 1993). The extraction of the maxillary primary incisors was the only treatment option when the coronal structure is lost (Carranza & Garcia-Godoy, 1999). Early loss of these teeth may lead to problems in the aesthetics, self-esteem, masticatory function, speech, and the development of parafunctional oral habits (Holan & Needleman, 2014). Many parents prefer the restoration of destroyed primary incisors in their children instead of the extraction (Carranza & Garcia-Godoy, 1999; Holan, Rahme, & Ram, 2009), but this procedure is hard to be done since there is an insufficient amount of coronal tooth

show abstract

“…This is due to the small size of the crown, relatively large pulp chambers, and the age of the child. The remaining inadequate sound tooth structure renders restorations more prone to fractures [6] Over the last few decades, various treatment strategies have been introduced such as, crowns for the coronal restorations, made of polycarbonate, cellulose strip crowns, art glass crowns, as well as veneered stainless steel crowns. Although it was found that in cases with severe carious loss of tooth structure, these restorations could not successfully withstand the occlusal forces [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Treatment Modalities for Rehabilitation of Mutilated Primary Anterior Teeth

Srivastava

Thosar

2021

JPRI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early childhood caries commonly affects the primary maxillary anterior teeth, in which extensive post- endodontic rehabilitation has always been a challenge. This is due to the small size of the crown, relatively large pulp chambers, and the age of the child. The remaining inadequate sound tooth structure renders restorations more prone to fractures. Among the available treatment modalities which include extraction of the grossly destructed tooth structure, use of semipermanent crowns and intracanal posts, the posts can be used effectively, to restore the lost function and anatomy. They also enhance the quality of the final coronal restoration by providing additional support for retention. The available methods for intracanal reinforcement for anterior teeth include the metal posts fabricated using orthodontic wires, short composite posts fabricated directed in the primary root canal, prefabricated glass fiber posts and posts utilising polyethylene fibers (Ribbond). Recently certain advanced techniques such as the biologic dentin and zirconia have also come into use. The various advantages and disadvantages for these have been summarised in this review along with the standardised clinical protocol for their placement in the primary root canals. Various in-vivo and in-vitro studies have concluded that the glass-fiber short intracanal posts provide the most suitable esthetics, strength, elastic modulus, and resilience. However, further qualitative research is required to certify it as a standard treatment modality.

show abstract

Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: A clinical study

Abstract: Both glass post and polyethylene post proved to be effective. Glass post showed the maximum retention and marginal adaptation followed by polyethylene post. Thus, it appears to be of potential interest for use especially in clinical pediatric dentistry.

Cited by 9 publications

References 0 publications

Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: A review of the current literature

Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: A review of the current literature

Clinical and radiographic comparative study to evaluate the efficacy of restoring destroyed primary incisors using two different techniques—A pilot study

Treatment Modalities for Rehabilitation of Mutilated Primary Anterior Teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About