Comparing Techniques for Removing Fiber Endodontic Posts: A Systematic Review

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to establish the available techniques for fiber post removal, pointing out where each method stands out evaluating its advantages, and where they fall short indicating the possible harmful effects. This systematic review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42020193799). A broad search of the electronic databases PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Virtual Health Library was carried out before April 27, 2020, for in vitro studies about techniques for removing fiber posts luted with resin cements of endodontically treated teeth. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated based on the critical assessment tool for in vitro studies. Thirteen articles were selected and included after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. All included studies received an assessment of methodological quality between high and moderate. Most studies used ultrasonic inserts as a strategy to remove fiber posts, manufactured removal kits and drills were also widely used, only one study evaluated the removal capacity of the Er:YAG laser. Ultrasonic inserts seem to lead to a greater working time for removal of the fiber post, tend to generate significant volume changes in the root structure and increase the temperature on the root canal and clean the root canal walls further. Although the results tend to show greater agility in removing fiber posts with manufactured removal kits and the ultrasonic inserts seem to work better in removing fiber remains and luting agent, there is still no consensus in the literature as to which technique is the best. In some cases, clinicians may be faced with the need to remove fiber posts in order to regain access to the root canal due to the need for endodontic retreatment which directly implies the search for the most appropriate removal technique. How to cite this article: Purger LO, Tavares SJO, Martinez RLCH, et al. Comparing Techniques for Removing Fiber Endodontic Posts: A Systematic Review. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(5):587-595.