OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to evaluate the effect of fiber post location on fracture resistance and failure mode of endodontically treated premolars with 2 roots.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty extracted maxillary first premolars with 2 roots were divided randomly into 5 groups. Group 1 was comprised of sound teeth, which received only metal crowns (control). Teeth from groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were decoronated 2 mm above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) and were endodontically treated. No post was placed in group 2 teeth. Teeth from groups 3, 4 and 5 were given a fiber post placed in the buccal canal, palatal canal, and both buccal and palatal canals, respectively. All teeth in groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were built up with composite and full coverage metal crowns. A compressive static load was applied at an angle of 25° to the crowns with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, until fracture.
RESULTS: One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences among the groups (p = 0.002). A post hoc test showed significantly lower fracture resistance of group 4 compared to group 5 (p = 0.011). Furthermore, group 2 had significantly less fracture resistance compared to group 1 (p = 0.021) and group 5 (p = 0.002). According to Fisher's exact test, different post locations are non-significantly associated with fracture mode (p = 0.256).
CONCLUSIONS: Fiber post location has a significant effect on fracture resistance of severely damaged, endodontically treated maxillary premolars with 2 roots. However, post placement in the palatal root is preferred, as it maintains the restorability of the tooth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 35 questions was distributed by mail or an online survey to 425 registered dentists selected according to place of work by stratified random sampling.
RESULTS: One hundred fifty-three dentists responded to the survey. A positive attitude towards FS and PRR was noted among most Malaysian dentists. About half of the respondents used FS/PRR occasionally (48.4%), while few (13.7%) applied them routinely. The majority of the dentists agreed that minimally invasive dentistry is important and FS are effective in caries prevention, using them on high caries-risk individuals. Most of the dentists used pumice or paste to clean teeth before placing FS/PRR. A significant number of dentists used a bonding agent prior to placing FS. Although only 57.5% dentists were aware of guidelines for FS use, most dentists agreed that guidelines are important.
CONCLUSION: Although there was a positive attitude towards FS/PRR, few dentists applied them routinely. Some of the steps undertaken for placement of FS and PRR were outdated. Updating local guidelines for dentists to ensure uniform practice of FS and PRR is justified.