Diametral tensile strength of a resin composite core with nonmetallic prefabricated posts: an in vitro study

Abstract

Statement of problem A number of prefabricated nonmetallic posts are currently available for use in conjunction with resin composite cores before fabrication of crowns for endodontically treated teeth. Information is needed regarding the strength of the composite and the nature of attachment between its components. Purpose The aim of this study was to determine the influence of different types of posts on the fracture resistance of a resin composite core material using the diametral tensile strength (DTS) test. Material and methods Cylindrical specimens, 6 mm in diameter and 3 mm high, were prepared from resin composite (Tetric Ceram) and a group of prefabricated posts (n = 10) as follows: resin composite only (control); Vectrispost (VTS); FiberKor (FKR); Æstheti-Plus post (ATP); Light-Post (LTP); Dentorama post (DRM), and Para-Post (PRP) as a second control. Specimens were stored for 7 days in water at 37°C and then subjected to DTS test in a universal testing machine until failure occurred and load was recorded (N). Mean values and SD for DTS values (MPA) were calculated, and data were analyzed statistically with 1-way analysis of variance, followed by the Tukey test (α = .05). Representative specimens from each group were examined with SEM to determine nature of failure. Results Mean values (SD) in MPa for DTS were as follow: Control group: 49.64 (3.36); VTS: 29.77 (3.36); FKR: 31.9 (2.39); ATP: 28.92 (2.2); LTP: 34.26 (3.37); DRM: 33.45 (2.46), and PRP: 27.90 (2.40). Analysis of variance indicated significant differences among the groups ( P<.05). SEM examination indicated that for PRP failure was adhesive in nature, whereas with all nonmetallic posts, cohesive failure was more predominant. Conclusion The use of posts did not result in reinforcement of resin composite core when diametral tensile force was applied. When used with the core material, LTP, DRM, and FKR resulted in the highest DTS values, whereas PRP resulted in the lowest values.