Cedillo VJJ

Language: Spanish
References: 30
Page: 296-303
PDF size: 513.54 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The success of root canal therapy is not achieved through good endodontic treatment alone, but also depends on the quality and stability of the post-endodontic restoration. After a root canal is performed, the tooth must be re-established as a functional, esthetic and permanent component of the masticatory system. If the restoration is inadequate, it can lead to a failure of not only the root canal treatment itself, but indeed of the entire case.
Whilst there is a great deal of literature that deals with intra-radicular post techniques and systems, a number of these studies disagree as to what constitutes the ideal and most effective design for a post-endodontic restoration. No post can be applied to every case, and the great variety of posts available makes it all the more difficult to choose the ideal option for each. The main disadvantage of active threaded posts are the vertical fractures caused in the tooth once they are in place, yet at the same time, they are the ideal choice for short-rooted teeth. In this article, we describe a flexible or hollow active threaded post that reduces stress within the canal.

REFERENCES

1. Sivers JE, J ohnson WT. Res tauración de dientes con tratamiento endodóntico. Clínicas Odontológicas de Norteamérica 1992;3:647-65.

2. Jacobi R, Shillinburg HT. Pernos, tornillos y otros dispositivos de retención en dientes posteriores. Clínicas Odontológicas de Norteamérica 1993;3:357-83.

3. Donald, H.L. Jeansonne, B.G., Gardiner D. M. y Sarkar, N.K. Influence of dentinal adhesives and prefabricated post on fracture resistance of silver amalgam cores. J Prosth Dent, 1997; 77(1): 17-22.

4. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW (2004). Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A literatura review. JOE; 2004; 30: 289–301.

5. Deutsch A, Musikant BL, Cavallari J, Lepley JB. Prefabricated dowels: A literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1983;49(2):498-503.

6. Jacobi R, Shillinburg HT. Pernos, tornillos y otros dispositivos de retención en dientes posteriores. Clínicas Odontológicas de Norteamérica 1993;3:357-83.

7. Weine FS, Wax AH, Wenckus CS. Retrospective study of tapered, smooth post systems in placed for 10 years or more. Journal of Endodontics 1991;17(6):293-7.

8. Ferrari, M., Vichi, A. Y García-Godoy, F. Clinical evaluation of fiber reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000; 13: 15B-18B.

9. Naumann, M., Sterzenbac, G., Franke, A. y Dietrich, T. Randomized controlled clinical pilot trial of titanium vs. glass fiber prefabricated posts: preliminary results after up to 3 years. Int J Prosthodont, 2007: 20(5); 499-503.

10. Robbins JW. Restauración de Dientes Tratados Endodónticamente. En: Schawrt R, Summit J y Robbins W, editores. Fundamentos en Odontología Operatoria. Colombia: D´Vinni Editorial Ltda; 1999. p. 321-36.

11. Kahn F., “Comparison of fatigue for three prefabricated threaded post system” Prosthet Dent 1996:75 148-153.

12. Cailleteau J. et. al. A Comparison of intracanal Stresses in a Post-Restored Tooth “Utilizing The finite Element Method” JOE 1992; 18: 540-544.

13. Caputo AA, Standlee J. Pin and Post &endash; Why, When and How. Dental Clinics of North America 1976;20(2):299-311.

14. Deutsch A, Musikant BL, Cavallari J, Lepley JB. Prefabricated dowels: A literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1983;49(2):498-503.

15. Holmes DC, Díaz-Arnold AM. Influence of post dimension on stress distribution in dentin. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1996;75:140-7.

16. Hudis SI, Goldstein GR. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A review of literature. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1986;55(1):34-3.

17. Jacobi R, Shillinburg HT. Pernos, tornillos y otros dispositivos de retención en dientes posteriores. Clínicas Odontológicas de Norteamérica 1993;3:357-83.

18. Purton DG, Chandler NP, Love RM. Rigidity and retention of root canal post. British Dental Journal 1998;184(6):294-6.

19. Sivers JE, Johnson WT. Restauración de dientes con tratamiento endodóntico. Clínicas Odontológicas de Norteamérica 1992;3:647-65.

20. Smith CT, Schuman NJ, Wasson W. Criterios para la evaluación de sistemas de muñón y poste prefabricados : Guía para el odontólogo restaurador. Quintessence (ed. esp.) 1999;12(10):636-43.

21. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel desing. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984;52(1):28-35.

22. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post system: A literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999;81:380-5.

23. Weine FS, Wax AH, Wenckus CS. Retrospective study of tapered, smooth post systems in placed for 10 years or more. Journal of Endodontics 1991;17(6):293-7.

24. Ziebert GJ. Restauración de dientes tratados endodónticamente. En: Malone WFP y Koth DL, editores. Tylman´s: Teoría y práctica en prostodoncia fija. 8va. ed. Caracas: Actualidades Médico Odontológicas Latinoamericana; 1993.p. 407-16.

25. Zmener O. Adaptation of threated dowels to dentin. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1980;43(5):530-5.

26. Robbins JW. Restauración de Dientes Tratados Endodónticamente. En: Schawrt R, Summit J y Robbins W, editores. Fundamentos en Odontología. Operatoria. Colombia: D´Vinni Editorial Ltda; 1999. p. 321-36.

27. Cohen BI, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Clinical usage of the Flexi-Flange post system. Dental News 1995; 2(3):33-36.

28. Cohen BI, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Comparison of the photoelastic stress for a split-shank threaded post versus a threaded post. J Prosthodont. 1994; 3(1):53-5.

29. Wilson NH, Setcos JC, Dummer PM, Gorman DG, Hopwood WA , Saunders WP, Hughlock RJ, Hunter MJ. A split-shank prefabricated post system: a critical multidisciplinary review. Quintessence Int. 1997; 28(11):737-43.

30. Stockton LW. Factors affecting retention of post system: A literature review. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1999;81:380-5.