Radiographic Analysis of Posts Performed by Undergraduate Dental Students: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract

Introduction Post and core restorations for endodontically treated teeth must meet certain prosthetic criteria to ensure the success of the final restoration. The aim of this study is to evaluate the quality of posts performed by dental students at King Abdulaziz University Dental Hospital (KAUDH), Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, utilizing periapical radiographs and whether the prosthetic criteria were strictly met by students. Materials and Methods This cross-sectional study included 661 digital periapical radiographs of posts performed by 6th-year dental students from September 2018 to April 2019. The assessment included the following factors: patient’s age, patient’s gender, tooth type, and arch. Post-related factors including post type, shape, diameter, length, and status of the remaining gutta percha were also evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS. Descriptive statistics were generated, and the association between different variables was determined using chi-square test at p <0.05. Results Posts were used to restore maxillary teeth (67%), and were particularly placed in premolars (44%). The majority of used posts were prefabricated tapered fiber posts (90%). The results were as follows: post diameter equal to one-third of root diameter, 50% met criterion; post length equal to two-thirds of root length, 33%; post length equal to or more than crown height, 93%; absence of space between gutta percha (GP) and post, 74%; and length of the remaining GP equal to 3–5 mm, 68%. Overall, 11% of the posts met all the ideal prosthetics criteria. Conclusion Most qualities of post and core restorations that were radiographically assessed were found to be acceptable and within the recommended prosthodontic criteria.

Quality of post and core placement by final year undergraduate dental students

“…Here we assessed the quality of post and core placement in sixth year dental students. Overall, outcomes were adequate, consistent with those of previous studies reporting clinically acceptable outcomes from post and core placement in cohorts of dental students [25][26][27][28]. Meshni et al [27] investigated the type and arch of tooth restored, gender of patient, type of post used, and the same quality outcomes as assessed here.…”

“…There was no space between gutta percha and post in 75% of cases (vs. 65.5% in our series). Similarly, in another study assessing the quality of 661 posts performed by sixth year undergraduate dental students attending King Abdulaziz University, Saudi Arabia [25], the post placement was again clinically acceptable in most cases, although only 11% of posts met all ideal criteria. A third study from Qassim University, Saudi Arabia, assessed the performance of undergraduate students in placing post and core restorations (the year of study was not specified) [26].…”

“…Post success was defined according to the following criteria and as previously [25,30] (see Table 1): 1) between 3 and 5 mm gutta percha remaining; 2) absence of a gap between the most apical part of the post and the most coronal part of the gutta percha or presence of a small gap of up to 1 mm; 3) a post width of no more than one-third to one-half the root width; and 4) a crown-to-root ratio of one-half, two-thirds, 1/1. Each quality item was given a score of 0, 1, or 2 (Table 1) to generate a total score out of 8, which was then assigned a letter corresponding to the student's grade according to the percentage score, with F denoting a "fail" (A 90-100%, B 80-89%, C 70-79%, D 60-69%, F <60%).…”

“…Four previous studies have examined the quality and type of post and core restorations performed by undergraduate students, and in general the quality of post and core restoration was clinically acceptable [25][26][27][28]. However, these studies did not examine predictors of post and core placement quality.…”

Evaluation of Students' Proficiency in Removing Gutta-Percha Prior to Fiber Post Placement: A Retrospective Study

“…Therefore, it is necessary to be careful while preparing the root canal space to avoid compromising the apical seal. The length of the remaining GP to withstand bacterial penetration and maintain the apical seal should be between 3 and 5 mm at the apex of the root [ 5 , 6 ]. A residual apical GP length of 3 mm is associated with a higher incidence of periapical radiolucency than roots with a longer residual root canal filling [ 7 ].…”