Enter your search terms Submit search form   Web www.dentalindia.com

 Requiem for a Post System

The opinions and photographs within this web page are not ours.
Authors have been credited  for the individual posts where they are.
Photos: Courtesy of Glenn Van As- www.rxroots.com
From: Dr. Glenn A. van As
Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 4:08 PM
To: ROOTS
Subject: Re: [roots] Requiem for a Post System

For Marga, Kendo and others.......I have no radiographs available here for you at
all sorry.- Glenn








Were you worried about the crack at the distobuccal aspect?  Is it safe to place a post,
bonded or not, in the buccal canal? did you absolutely need it?

Great documentation as always.- Vince

Hi Vincent.......I really wasnt that worried about the crack as
periodontally there was no probings at that point.

As for the buccal canal , there was very little tooth structure left so
I thought 2 was better than one (similar to Marga Ree in her case).

Good questions though, and I guess some would just put one.  I figured
less chance for problems in this case with two rather than one
considering that the case was almost all core buildup and the patient
has little finances for a crown at present.

Thanks for your feedback Vince.- Glenn

Very nice Glenn! Congrats! - Liviu
Thanks Liviu.....almost died today from my long run, but I made it. - Glenn

Wow, Glenn, this is great stuff, you are the master of documentation! - Marga

Yes, but it wasn't near as difficult as it seems.  Glen had the photos set
up well, I just took stock backgrounds and pasted his images in.  I didn't
even add text other than the title slide.

I'm working on the 15 minute molar endo.  I have the rubber dam down to 5,
the access down to 9,  so if I can just get instrumentation and obturation
down to 60 seconds, I've got it knocked. :) - gary

I was wondering why you made the core so pretty, assumed it was mugging for
the camera :).  I nearly always place two posts in a bicuspid such as yours,
the rational being that a two point contact resists rotational forces much
better than a single point.  Some would counter that you could have simply
dropped a "composipost" extension into the buccal to accomplish much the
same, but I like the double post alignment. - gary

Gary, it was only after we were all done and she mentioned that she had lost her job
and that finances were tough that she told me that she couldnt get the crown.
Well the contacts were not too tight were they!

Food entrapment galore but at that point there was no going back to do the core over again.
Thanks for the kind remarks. - Glenn

From: Kenneth S. Serota, DDS, MMSc

The point of referencing the Peerless Post System was to draw Drs. Kogan and Kuttler into the discussion if possible.
Dr. John Peters who currently practices in Nova Scotia was involved in the presentation done by Nova post docs at
the AAE in 05.  Logically, a system that doesn’t alter the prepared canal space and simply acts to effect adhesion
of core material in concert with the surface area of a well designed chamber space and a well executed coronal
preparation is optimal in terms of reconstruction posts don’t prevent rotation, preparation prevents rotation
 this discussion should take place with the inventors if at all possible .i.e. who in the design of the
Bisco DT posts came up with apical sizes of .8, 1.0 and 1.2 for sizes hey sure weren’t doing a whole lotta
root canals.


J Dent. 2005 Sep 30; [Epub ahead of print]
Influence of different posts and cores on marginal adaptation, fracture resistance, and fracture mode of composite resin crowns on human mandibular premolars. An in vitro study.

Stricker EJ, Gohring TN.

Clinic for Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, University of Zurich,
Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate marginal adaptation, fracture modes, and loads to failure of composite crowns with different
substructures on root-canal-treated premolars. METHODS: Forty-eight mandibular teeth with single root canals were selected
and assigned to six equal groups: group I, untreated; group II, root-canal-treated (RCT), access cavity restored with
composite resin; group III, RCT, ferrule (2mm), no post, standardized composite resin crown (SRCC); group IV, RCT,
ferrule, glass fiber post, SRCC; group V, RCT, ferrule, zirconium post, SRCC; group VI, RCT, ferrule, cast gold post,
SRCC. All teeth were subjected to thermocycling and mechanical loading (TCML) in a computer-controlled masticator
(1,200,000 loads, 49N, 1.7Hz, 3000 temperature cycles of 5-50-5 degrees C). Marginal adaptation was evaluated before and
after TCML with scanning electron microscopy at x200 at the tooth-to-luting-composite (IF1) and the luting-composite-to-
crown (IF2) interfaces. After TCML, all specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine at 0.5mm/min.

RESULTS: A significant decrease in marginal adaptation was found in groups III and IV after TCML at IF1. A significant
decrease was observed at IF2 in group V. Mean loads to failure did not differ significantly between the groups with SRCCs.
Those of groups II, III, and IV did not differ from that of unrestored teeth. Half the specimens exhibited partial root
fractures, independent of the substructures used. No deep or vertical root fractures were observed in any group.

CONCLUSION: All studied posts had a positive effect on marginal adaptation at IF1, but not on failure modes or loads to
failure of composite resin crowns.