[Root canal post for build-up restorations: necessary or redundant?] / Wortelstift bij funderingsrestauraties: noodzakelijk of overbodig?

The purpose of root canal posts is to obtain additional retention for build-up restorations of endodontically treated teeth so they can be functionally reconstructed. Due to developments in adhesive dentistry and a lack of clinical evidence, root canal posts are used less and less. Currently, the advice of the European Society of Endodontology is to use a root canal post only in front teeth and premolars in the absence of remaining coronal dentine walls. It is important to avoid additional preparation when placing a root canal post, because this causes (additional) weakness of the tooth. The loss of dental tissue due to preparation cannot be compensated for by placing a post.

Clinical success and survival of indirect resin composite crowns: results of a 3-year prospective study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to test the new resin composite "NECO" as a material for indirect restorations clinically. METHODS: Forty-five patients were selected, of which 12 men and 33 women, with a mean age of 53. A total of 91 post-canine indirect resin composite NECO (Heraeus Kulzer, GmbH) restorations were placed, of which 86 full crowns and 5 onlays. Restorations were cemented with either resin cement (2bond2) or resin modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus). The restorations were evaluated 1-2 weeks (baseline), 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years after placement. At these recalls, success and survival data of the abutment teeth were documented. Survival was defined as the restoration being in situ, and success as the restoration in situ without complications. RESULTS: After 3 years in service, the restorations showed success and survival rates of 84.8 and 91.6%, respectively. Cementation with Fuji Plus showed a trend (p=0.054) toward higher success (93.1%) and survival (100%) rates compared to cementation with 2bond2 cement which showed success and survival rates of 81.4 and 87.9% respectively. Restorations on vital teeth resulted in success and survival rates of 86.8 and 95.3% respectively, while restorations on endodontically treated teeth showed success and survival rates of 82.6 and 87.5%. This difference was not statistically significant (p=0.296). SIGNIFICANCE: Three-year success and survival rates of NECO restorations were 84.8 and 91.6%, respectively. The design of the preparation and restoration should take the material properties into account in order to enhance the clinical performance.