AIM To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibularcentral incisor teeth in forty...AIM To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibularcentral incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored either with an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene(UHMWP) fiber post (Bondable Reinforcement Ribbon, DENSE, Ribbond, Seattle, WA, United States) or a zircon-rich glass fiber post (Snowpost, Lot H 040; Carbotech, Ganges, France). Then, direct resin composite restoration (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was performed for both post systems in tooth color suitable. Patients were recalled for routine inspections at 6 mo, 1, 2 and 3 years.RESULTS The restorations were assessed during each recall evaluation according to predetermined clinical and radiographic criteria (periapical lesion; marginal leakage and integrity; color stability; surface stain and loss of retention of the post or the composite buildup material). The follow-up data showed no significant difference in these criteria between polyethylene fibre posts and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts.CONCLUSION The efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts were similar, suggesting that both types of fiber post can be used successfully to help retain resin composite restorations.展开更多
文摘AIM To compare the efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts. METHODS Sixty-two single rooted maxillary and mandibularcentral incisor teeth in forty-four patients (15 males and 29 females; age range 15-32 years) were restored either with an ultrahigh molecular weight polyethylene(UHMWP) fiber post (Bondable Reinforcement Ribbon, DENSE, Ribbond, Seattle, WA, United States) or a zircon-rich glass fiber post (Snowpost, Lot H 040; Carbotech, Ganges, France). Then, direct resin composite restoration (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was performed for both post systems in tooth color suitable. Patients were recalled for routine inspections at 6 mo, 1, 2 and 3 years.RESULTS The restorations were assessed during each recall evaluation according to predetermined clinical and radiographic criteria (periapical lesion; marginal leakage and integrity; color stability; surface stain and loss of retention of the post or the composite buildup material). The follow-up data showed no significant difference in these criteria between polyethylene fibre posts and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts.CONCLUSION The efficacy of resin composite restorations, retained with either polyethylene or zirconia-rich glass fiber posts were similar, suggesting that both types of fiber post can be used successfully to help retain resin composite restorations.
