References

Fernandes AS, Dessai GS Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14:(4)355-363
Robbins JW Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am. 2002; 46:(2)367-384
Sedgley CM, Messer HH Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle?. J Endod. 1992; 18:(7)332-335
Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989; 15:(11)512-516
Pantvisai P, Messer HH Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1995; 21:(2)57-61
Randow K, Glantz P-O On cantilever loading of vital and non-vital teeth. An experimental clinical study. Acta Odontol Scand. 1986; 44:(5)271-277
Nayyar A, Walton R, Leonard L An amalgam coronal-radicular dowel and core technique for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 43:511-515
Sorensen J, Engelman M Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1990; 63:529-536
Jotkowitz A, Samet N Rethinking ferrule – a new approach to an old dilemma. Br Dent J. 2010; 209:(1)25-33
Akkayan B An in vitro study evaluating the effect of ferrule length on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced and zirconia dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2004; 92:(2)155-162
Tjan AH, Whang SB Resistance to root fracture of dowel channels with various thicknesses of buccal dentin walls. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53:(4)496-500
Morgano S, Brackett S Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics: current knowledge and future needs. J Prosthet Dent. 1999; 82:643-657
Ng CC, Dumbrigue HB, Al-Bayat MI Influence of remaining coronal tooth structure location on the fracture resistance of restored endodontically treated anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2006; 95:(4)290-296
Arunpraditkul S, Saengsanon S, Pakviwat W Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: three walls versus four walls of remaining coronal tooth structure. J Prosthodont. 2009; 18:(1)49-53
Goodacre CJ, Spolnik KJ The prosthodontic management of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. Part I. Success and failure data, treatment concepts. J Prosthodont. 1994; 3:(4)243-250
Sorensen J, Martinoff J Endodontically treated teeth as abutments. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53:631-636
Balto H, Al-Nazhan S, Al-Mansour K Microbial leakage of Cavit, IRM, and Temp Bond in post-prepared root canals using two methods of guttapercha removal: an in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2005; 6:(3)53-61
Hunter A, Feiglin B, Williams J Effects of post placement on endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 62:(2)166-172
Kuttler S, McLean A, Dorn S The impact of post space preparation with Gates-Glidden drills on residual dentin thickness in distal roots of mandibular molars. J Am Dent Assoc. 2004; 135:(7)903-909
Ferrari M, Cagidiaco M, Grandini S Post placement affects survival of endodontically treated premolars. J Dent Res. 2007; 86:(8)729-734
Butz F, Lennon AM, Heydecke G, Strub JR Survival rate and fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with moderate defects restored with different post-and-core systems: an in vitro study. Int J Prosthodont. 2001; 14:(1)58-64
Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent. 1999; 27:(4)275-278
Mannocci F, Cavalli G, Gagliani MBerlin: Quintessence; 2008
Mannocci F, Qualtrough A, Worthington H Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results. Oper Dent. 2004; 30:(1)9-15
Monticelli F, Grandini S, Goracci C Clinical behavior translucent-fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003; 16:(6)593-596
Tay FR, Loushine RJ, Lambrechts P Geometric factors affecting dentin bonding in root canals: a theoretical modeling approach. J Endod. 2005; 31:(8)584-589
De Munck J, Van Meerbeek B, Yoshida Y Four-year water degradation of total-etch adhesives bonded to dentin. J Dent Res. 2003; 82:(2)136-140
Sano H, Takatsu T, Ciucchi B Nanoleakage: leakage within the hybrid layer. Oper Dent. 1994; 20:(1)18-25
Lai S, Mak Y, Cheung G Reversal of compromised bonding to oxidized etched dentin. J Dent Res. 2001; 80:(10)1919-1924
Torbjörner A, Fransson B A literature review on the prosthetic treatment of structurally compromised teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 2004; 17:(3)369-376
Isidor F, Brøndum K, Ravnholt G The influence of post length and crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic loading of bovine teeth with prefabricated titanium posts. Int J Prosthodont. 1999; 12:(1)78-82
Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Holcomb J The retentive and stress-distributing properties of a threaded endodontic dowel. J Prosthet Dent. 1980; 44:(4)398-404
Felton D, Webb E, Kanoy B Threaded endodontic dowels: effect of post design on incidence of root fracture. J Prosthet Dent. 1991; 65:(2)179-187
Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1984; 51:(6)780-784
Caputo A, Standlee J Pins and posts – why, when and how. Dent Clin North Am. 1976; 20:(2)299-311
Ruemping DR, Lund MR, Schnell RJ Retention of dowels subjected to tensile and torsional forces. J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 41:(2)159-162
O'Keefe K, Powers J, McGuckin R In vitro bond strength of silica-coated metal posts in roots of teeth. Int J Prosthodont. 1992; 5:(4)373-376
Aquilino S, Caplan D Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87:256-263
Cobankara F, Unlu N, Cetin A The effect of different restoration techniques on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated molars. Oper Dent. 2008; 33:(5)526-533
Murphy F, McDonald A, Petrie A Coronal tooth structure in root-treated teeth prepared for complete and partial coverage restorations. J Oral Rehabil. 2009; 36:(6)451-461
Cheung G, Lai S, Ng R Fate of vital pulps beneath a metal-ceramic crown or a bridge retainer. Int Endod J. 2005; 38:(8)521-530

Modern endodontic principles part 7: the restorative interface

From Volume 43, Issue 4, May 2016 | Pages 319-334

Authors

Warren Martin

BDS, LDS, MSc, MFDS

General Dental Practitioner/Clinical Teaching Fellow, Greyholme Dental Suite, Cheltenham/University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by Warren Martin

Carly Taylor

BDS, MSc, MFGDP, FHEA

Clinical Lecturer/Honorary Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Manchester

Articles by Carly Taylor

Sarra Jawad

BDS, BSc, MFDS

Specialty Registrar/Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by Sarra Jawad

Reza Vahid Roudsari

DDS, MFDS, MSc, PGCert(OMFS)

Clinical Lecturer/Honorary Specialty Registrar in Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, University of Manchester

Articles by Reza Vahid Roudsari

James Darcey

BDS, MSc, MDPH, MFGDP, MEndo, FDS(Rest Dent)

Consultant and Honorary Clinical Lecturer in Restorative Dentistry, University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by James Darcey

Alison Qualtrough

BChD, MSc, PhD, FDS MRD, BChD, MSc, PhD, FDS, MRD (RCS Edin)

University Dental Hospital of Manchester

Articles by Alison Qualtrough

Abstract

The restoration of endodontically-treated teeth is a topic that has been extensively studied and yet remains controversial. The endodontically-treated tooth can be restored with a wide range of techniques of varying complexity. This article reviews the literature on this topic. Consideration is given to the ferrule and its importance in achieving success. Furthermore, consideration will be given to the use of endodontically-treated teeth as abutments for fixed and removable prostheses and the challenges this presents. Clinical recommendations are presented as guidelines to improve the predictability and outcome of treatment when restoring structurally compromised root-filled teeth.

CPD/Clinical Relevance: The prognosis of endodontically-treated teeth depends not only on the success of the endodontic treatment, but also on the type of reconstruction.

Article

Following successful endodontic therapy the tooth must be restored. This restoration process has several justifications:

Of these functions, protection of the underlying tooth structure should be recognized as essential in preventing endodontic failure. It is known that the longevity of a root-treated tooth is directly related to the amount of remaining sound tooth material1 and there is frequently extensive loss of natural tooth structure in endodontically-treated teeth.2 Previous beliefs that the mechanical weakening of endodontically-treated teeth was due to the difference in moisture content when compared to vital teeth has been disproved.3 It has been shown that endodontic access and treatment only reduces the stiffness of teeth by 5%, compared to a 63% reduction in stiffness following preparation of an MOD cavity.4 It is now accepted that cuspal deflection and thickness of the residual walls and cusps are more important factors. As cavity size increases, especially after endodontic access, and the marginal ridges are lost, structural stability decreases. Thus, the presence of a marginal ridge is now considered a far more influential factor upon tooth strength than an endodontic access cavity.5 However, it must be noted that non-vital teeth do appear to have reduced tactile sensitivity and therefore have the potential to be loaded to a greater degree before the biofeedback mechanism is initiated.6

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Up to 2 free articles per month
  • New content available