Skip to main content Skip to main navigation menu Skip to site footer
MedNext Journal of Medical and Health Sciences
Review
DOI: 10.54448/mdnt22S302
Submitted: 05-07-2022
Published: 05-08-2022

Clinical approaches and removal of cast metallic posts for their replacement by the fiberglass posts: a concise systematic review

UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
UNORTE - University Center of Northern São Paulo - Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil / UNIPOS - Post graduate and continuing education, Dentistry department, Sao Jose do Rio Preto, Sao Paulo, Brazil
Metal posts Fiberglass posts Intra-radicular posts Removal Techniques Aesthetics Removal metal posts

Abstract

Introduction: A successful placement of an intraradicular post needs a good endodontic treatment. Consideration should also be given to the possibility of its future removal. Authors have shown that approximately 10% of cases of teeth indicated for endodontic retreatment require removal of intraradicular posts. Objective: To carry out a concise systematic review to analyze the reasons for replacing intraradicular posts, the most effective and used techniques for removing the metallic post, the manufacture of the fiberglass post, and the difference between the two types of posts. Methods: The present study followed a systematic review model, following the rules of systematic review – PRISMA. The search strategy was performed in the PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Results and Conclusion: A total of 112 articles were found. A total of 56 articles were fully evaluated and 18 were included in this study. Based on the objective and results found in the present study, the review demonstrated the main advantages and disadvantages of the clinical performance of cast metal posts and fiberglass posts, as well as the reason for switching from metal to fiberglass posts. Despite the wear caused by endodontic treatment, it is important to check the remaining dentin to choose the best retainer, observing the amount of this remaining structure, as it directly influences the selection of the post. Regarding the removal of the metallic pin, wear, ultrasound, and seizure/removal with some traction device are used. The replacement of the metallic post can opt for fiberglass posts because they have a greater advantage compared to the metallic post, mainly for aesthetics, the manufacturing technique is more agile, they do not generate risks of root fracture and if, for any eventuality, it needs to be removed. to portray the channel, the technique is smooth and easy.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

  1. Brezinsky S, Bowles W, McClanahan S, Fok A, Ordinola-Zapata R. In Vitro Comparison of Porcelain Fused to Metal Crown Retention after Endodontic Access and Subsequent Restoration: Composite, Amalgam, Amalgam with Composite Veneer, and Fiber Post with Composite. J Endod. 2020 Nov;46(11):1766-1770. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.08.009. Epub 2020 Aug 17. PMID: 32818565.
  2. Papalexopoulos D, Samartzi TK, Sarafianou A. A Thorough Analysis of the Endocrown Restoration: A Literature Review. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021 Apr 1;22(4):422-426. PMID: 34267013.
  3. Al-Dabbagh RA. Survival and success of endocrowns: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 2021 Mar;125(3):415.e1-415.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2020.01.011. Epub 2020 Mar 18. PMID: 32197821.
  4. Albuquerque RDC, Alvim HH. Posts pré-fabricados e núcleos de preenchimento. In: Mendes WB, Miyashita E, et al. (Ed.). Reabilitação Oral: Previsibilidade e longevidade. São Paulo: Editora Napoleão, 2011. cap. 15, p.393- 418.
  5. de Moraes Melo Neto CL, Costa GT, Lorga T, Santin GC, Mondelli J, Sabio S. Effect of using the New Glass Fiber Pin in Resin Composite Restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018 May 1;19(5):541-545. PMID: 29807964.
  6. Zuolo ML. et al. Remoção de posts: protocolos clínicos. 1 ed. São Paulo: Quintessence editora, 2016.
  7. da Costa Fartes OA, de Resende LM, Cilli R, do Carmo AMR, Baroudi K, Cortelli JR. Retention of Provisional Intraradicular Retainers Using Fiberglass Posts. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020 Sep 28;10(5):666-673. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_298_20. PMID: 33282778; PMCID: PMC7685286.
  8. Azambuja TWFD, Bercini F, Alano F. Cirurgia paraendodôntica: revisão da literatura e apresentação de casos clínico-cirúrgicos. 2006. 24-29 (47). Revista da Faculdade de Odontologia de Porto Alegre.
  9. Andrade SA. Cast metal posts versus glass fibre posts: which treatment of choice based on cost-minimisation analysis? Evid Based Dent. 2021 Dec;22(4):128-129. doi: 10.1038/s41432-021-0226-7. Epub 2021 Dec 16. Erratum in: Evid Based Dent. 2022 Mar;23(1):5. PMID: 34916635.
  10. Skupien JA, Cenci MS, Opdam NJ, Kreulen CM, Huysmans MC, Pereira-Cenci T. Crown vs. composite for post-retained restorations: A randomized clinical trial. J Dent. 2016 May;48:34-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.03.007. Epub 2016 Mar 11. PMID: 26976553.
  11. Figueiredo FE, Martins-Filho PR, Faria-E-Silva AL. Do metal post-retained restorations result in more root fractures than fiber post-retained restorations? A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2015 Mar;41(3):309-16. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.006. Epub 2014 Nov 11. PMID: 25459568.
  12. Sarkis-Onofre R, Jacinto RC, Boscato N, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T. Cast metal vs. glass fibre posts: a randomized controlled trial with up to 3 years of follow up. J Dent. 2014 May;42(5):582-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2014.02.003. Epub 2014 Feb 12. PMID: 24530920.
  13. Braga NM, Paulino SM, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Vansan LP. Removal resistance of glass-fiber and metallic cast posts with different lengths. J Oral Sci. 2006 Mar;48(1):15-20. doi: 10.2334/josnusd.48.15. PMID: 16617196.
  14. Zuolo ML. et al. Reintervention in Endodontics. 1 ed. São Paulo: Quintessence editora, 2014.
  15. Mazaro JVQ. et al. Fatores determinantes na seleção de posts intraradiculares. Revista Odontologia UNESP, v. 35, n. 4, p. 223-31, 2006.
  16. Mesquita E, Kunert IR. O ultra-som na Prática Odontológica. Porto Alegre: Artmed Editora, 2006. ISBN 8536315040.
  17. Pantoja CADMS. et al. Remoção de retentores metálicos intrarradiculares com o Saca-posts M&V: relato de casos clínicos. RPG Revista de Pós-Graduação, v. 18, n. 4, p. 260-265, 2011. ISSN 0104-5695.
  18. Berbert F. et al. Efeito do desgaste da linha de cimento, da vibração ultra-sônica e da associação de ambas sobre a força de tração empregada na remoção de posts intra-radiculares. Rev Odontol UNESP, v. 31, n. 2, p. 215-29, 2002.

How to Cite

Oliveira, D. S. de, Alvarenga, G. V., Bossa, C. R. P., Maluf, A. P. B. R., Tempest, L. M., & Buchala, C. A. C. N. (2022). Clinical approaches and removal of cast metallic posts for their replacement by the fiberglass posts: a concise systematic review. MedNEXT Journal of Medical and Health Sciences, 3(S3). https://doi.org/10.54448/mdnt22S302