“Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Custom Cast Post and Core, Pre-Fabricated Post and Core and CAD/CAM Fabricated Post and Core: An In-Vitro Study”

Abstract

The aim of the study was to compare and evaluate fracture resistance of Custom Cast post and core, Pre-fabricated post and core and CAD/CAM fabricated post and core. Material and Methods: 60 transparent endoblocks with single root canal that simulated natural teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups of 20 endoblocks each. The working length of the root canal in the transparent endobloc was determined. The canals were prepared with K-file sizes 10,15 and 20 followed by Protaper Ni-Ti files (sizes S1, S2, F1 and F2); Dentsply by using the crown down technique to the full working length. Gutta percha was removed from the root canals with Peeso drills to a depth of 12 and post spaces were prepared in all groups with the special preparation drills of each system leaving 5mm of gutta percha in all specimens. For group 1, after root canal treatment of 20 samples, Prefabricated plastic burnout posts were coated with pattern resin and then inserted into the canal with slight pressure to take the canal impression which was further send for casting followed by using GC gold label glass ionomer resin for luting. For group 2, the Prefabricated EDELWEISS post and core were placed into the canal and the cement was allowed to set. For group 3 impression of the canal was made using pattern resin. The burnout post was scanned with a lab scanner and designing was done using the designing software. CAD-CAM fabricated post and core was placed into the canal and luted with the help of glass ionomer cement. Composite core fabrication was done and the specimens were secured in a universal load-testing machine at an angle of 1300 to the long axis of the tooth. Until fracture occurred, a compressive force was applied at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The fracture loads were determined. Mean failure load for each group was recorded in N. Results: The mean fracture load of Group 1, was found to the maximum followed by Group 3 & Group 2 samples, in decreasing order. Conclusion: The mean ......