Effect of photo core, LuxaCore, and core max II core building materials on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite posts and ParaPosts

Alireza Izadi; Bijan Heidari; Farnoush Fotovat; Armaghan Shahbazi; Hanif Allahbakhshi; Ghodratollah Roshanaei; Zohre Farhangian; Kioumars Kiani

Effect of photo core, LuxaCore, and core max II core building materials on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite posts and ParaPosts

Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020 Aug 14;17(4):244-250. eCollection 2020 Jul-Aug.

Authors

Alireza Izadi¹, Bijan Heidari², Farnoush Fotovat¹, Armaghan Shahbazi¹, Hanif Allahbakhshi³, Ghodratollah Roshanaei⁴, Zohre Farhangian⁵, Kioumars Kiani⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
² Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
³ Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kashan University of Medical Sciences, Kashan, Iran.
⁴ Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
⁵ Department of Aesthetic and Restorative, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
⁶ Dentist, Private Practice, Tehran, Iran.

PMID: 33282149
PMCID: PMC7688039

Abstract

Background: Post and core treatment is commonly performed for endodontically treated teeth to replace the lost tooth structure and reinforce and protect the remaining dental tissue. This study aimed to compare the effect of three-core building materials on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts and ParaPosts.

Materials and methods: This in vitro, experimental study evaluated 108 sound, single-rooted mandibular first premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes. The teeth were randomly divided into nine groups (n = 12) of control (no endodontic or restorative treatment), FRC + Photo Core (Group 2), FRC + LuxaCore (Group 3), FRC + Core Max II with bonding agent (Group 4), FRC + Core Max II without bonding agent (Group 5), ParaPost + Photo Core (Group 6), ParaPost + LuxaCore (Group 7), ParaPost + Core Max II with bonding agent (Group 8), and ParaPost + Core Max II without bonding agent (Group 9). The fracture resistance was measured by applying the load at 45° angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tooth with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a universal testing machine. Data were through descriptive statistics, Tukey's test, and one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05).

Results: The mean fracture resistance was 454.0 ± 62.7, 410.8 ± 48.3, 365.1 ± 42.1, 423.7 ± 111.7, 392.4 ± 90.0, 292.3 ± 83.9, 242.3 ± 73.4, 278.2 ± 67.9, and 247.3 ± 49.6 N in Groups 1-9, respectively. Group 4 showed the highest fracture resistance, which was significantly higher than this study the value in all ParaPost and control groups (P < 0.05) but had no significant difference with the fracture resistance of other groups (P > 0.05).

Conclusion: Fracture resistance is independent of the type of core building material used, and the tested products had no superiority over each other. The mean fracture resistance of FRC post groups were significantly higher than that of ParaPost groups. Furthermore, Core Max II + bonding agent yielded insignificantly higher fracture resistance than Core Max II without bonding agent.

Keywords: Flexural strength; post and core technique; root canal therapy.