Performance of Fiberglass Posts Versus Fiber- Reinforced Resin Composites in Endodontically Treated Anterior Teeth Without Ferrule: A Systematic Review.
S K Guzmán Reyes, D E Brito Bojorque, J F Calle Prado, T E Romero Mogrovejo, E Ruales-Carrera, B A Delgado Gaete, P Pauletto
{"title":"Performance of Fiberglass Posts Versus Fiber- Reinforced Resin Composites in Endodontically Treated Anterior Teeth Without Ferrule: A Systematic Review.","authors":"S K Guzmán Reyes, D E Brito Bojorque, J F Calle Prado, T E Romero Mogrovejo, E Ruales-Carrera, B A Delgado Gaete, P Pauletto","doi":"10.1922/EJPRD_2802GuzmanReyes18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To perform a systematic review of in vitro studies examining endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with fiberglass posts versus composite posts reinforced with: polyethylene fibers (Ribbond), fiber-reinforced resin (everStick) and composite resin (everX).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS. The studies were selected by two independent reviewers. To assess the risk of bias of each study, the QUIN tool was used. We analyzed the data using a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Five articles were retained for final analysis. The risk of bias was moderate to high. Most studies reported non-catastrophic failures. With 72 non-catastrophic failures for the glass fiber group and 60 for the fiber-reinforced resins. Catastrophic failures were more prevalent in fiber-reinforced composite, especially in the Ribbond-treated group.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, the use of fiberreinforced composites as custom intracanal posts is still questionable, with controversial results. It is not possible to establish the superiority of one approach over the other in endodontically treated anterior teeth without ferrule.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>It was not possible to identify a superior performance among the approaches analyzed for the restoration of endodontically treated anterior teeth without ferrule.</p>","PeriodicalId":45686,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1922/EJPRD_2802GuzmanReyes18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: To perform a systematic review of in vitro studies examining endodontically treated anterior teeth restored with fiberglass posts versus composite posts reinforced with: polyethylene fibers (Ribbond), fiber-reinforced resin (everStick) and composite resin (everX).
Methods: The search was performed using PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and LILACS. The studies were selected by two independent reviewers. To assess the risk of bias of each study, the QUIN tool was used. We analyzed the data using a narrative synthesis.
Results: Five articles were retained for final analysis. The risk of bias was moderate to high. Most studies reported non-catastrophic failures. With 72 non-catastrophic failures for the glass fiber group and 60 for the fiber-reinforced resins. Catastrophic failures were more prevalent in fiber-reinforced composite, especially in the Ribbond-treated group.
Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, the use of fiberreinforced composites as custom intracanal posts is still questionable, with controversial results. It is not possible to establish the superiority of one approach over the other in endodontically treated anterior teeth without ferrule.
Clinical relevance: It was not possible to identify a superior performance among the approaches analyzed for the restoration of endodontically treated anterior teeth without ferrule.
目的：对玻璃纤维桩与聚乙烯纤维（Ribbond）、纤维增强树脂（everStick）和复合树脂（everX）增强的复合桩在牙髓治疗后修复前牙的体外研究进行系统回顾。方法：检索PubMed、Scopus、Web of Science和LILACS。这些研究是由两位独立的审稿人选择的。为了评估每项研究的偏倚风险，使用了QUIN工具。我们用叙事综合法分析数据。结果：保留5篇文章进行最终分析。偏倚风险为中等至高。大多数研究报告了非灾难性的失败。玻璃纤维组有72次非灾难性故障，纤维增强树脂组有60次。灾难性失效在纤维增强复合材料中更为普遍，特别是在带状处理组中。结论：在本研究的限制范围内，使用纤维增强复合材料作为定制的管内桩仍然存在问题，结果存在争议。在无卡箍的前牙根管治疗中，不可能确定一种入路优于另一种入路。临床相关性：不可能在分析的修复无卡箍根管治疗的前牙的入路中确定一个优越的性能。
期刊介绍：
The European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry is published quarterly and includes clinical and research articles in subjects such as prosthodontics, operative dentistry, implantology, endodontics, periodontics and dental materials.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
