Issues‎ > ‎vol9no1‎ > ‎


Preference for Using Posts to Restore Endodontically Treated Teeth among Dentists in College of Dentistry/ Hawler Medical University

Sohela F. Mahdi* , Niaz H. Hamasaeed* , Hidayat A. khudhur* , Hozan F. Tawfiq**
*Conservative Department, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
**Pedodontics, Orthodontics and Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.
Submitted: April 30, 2022, Accepted: May 30, 2022, Published: June 1, 2022.


Objective: Traditional restorative approaches are being modified as newer materials become available and patient preferences shift. The purpose of the study was to see if dentists' preferences for using posts and other materials associated to post used to restore endodontically treated teeth are influenced by practical experience, whether measured by the length of clinical practice time or level of specialty.  

MethodsA cross-sectional study was conducted with dentists (n = 108) working at Hawler Medical University/College of Dentistry utilizing a questionnaire. Data on sociodemographics, clinical experience, postgraduate training, and post-endodontic restoration characteristics (posts/types of cement, rubber dam application) were obtained. The samples only included general and specialist dentists. A descriptive analysis was performed on the data. The Chi-square test and Fisher's exact test investigated the relationships.      

ResultsThe most chosen materials were metal posts (53.7 %) and resin cement (50 %). There was a statistically significant association between clinical practice duration and post-use type (P = 0.017). In addition, there was a highly significant relationship (P = 0.001) between clinical practice time, level of specialty, and the use of rubber dams.  

ConclusionsDentists favored metal posts for post endodontic restorations, while resin-based cement was the preferred luting cement for the posts' cementation. Additional training and more clinical practice time were factors in several dental post-selection decisions.                                                                                     

Keywords:  Metal post, Fiber post, Rubber dam, Endodontic restoration.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               


1. Ratnakar P, Bhosgi R, Metta KK, Aggarwal K, Vinuta S, Singh N. Survey on restoration of endodontic treated anterior teeth: A questionnaire based study. J Int Oral Health. 2014;6(6):41-5.
2. Chadwick J, Gonzales A, McLean C, Naghavi A, Rosati S, Yau S. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth: An evidence based literature review. Community Dent. 2008;22(1):1-21. 
3. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fiber- based post systems: a review. Br Dent J.  2003;195(37):43-8.
4. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S. Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent. 2005; 93(2):164-70.
5. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004;30(5):289-301.
6. Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Bronkhorst EM, Creugers NH. Up to 17-year controlled clinical study on post-and-cores and covering crowns. J Dent. 2007; 35(10):778-86. 
7. Piovesan EM, Demarco FF, Cenci MS, Pereira- Cenci T. Survival rates of endodontically treated  teeth restored with fiber-reinforced custom posts and cores: a 97-month study. Int J Prosthodont. 2007;20(7):633-9.
8. Naumann M, Koelpin M, Beuer F, Meyer-Lueckel  H. 10-year survival evaluation for glass-fiber- supported postendodontic restoration: a  prospective observational clinical study. J Endod. 2012;38(4):432-5.
9. Sarkis-Onofre R, Jacinto RC, Boscato N, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T. Cast metal vs. glass fibre posts: a randomized controlled trial with up to 3 years of follow up. J Dent. 2014;42(5):582-7.
10. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136(5):611-9.
11. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J. 2011;56(1):77-83.
12. Faria-e-Silva AL, Mendonça AA, Garcez RM, Oliveira AS, Moreira AG, Moraes RR. Adhesion strategy and early bond strengths of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals. Braz Oral Res. 2012;26(5):485-7.
13. Faria-e-Silva AL, Menezes MS, Silva FP, Reis GR, Moraes RR. Intra-radicular dentin treatments and retention of fiber posts with self-adhesive resin cements. Braz Oral Res. 2013;27(1):14-9.
14. Santos Filho PC, Soares PV, Reis BR, Veríssimo C, Soares CJ. Effects of threaded post placement on strain and stress distribution of endodontically treated teeth. Braz Oral Res. 2013;27(4):305-10.
15. Sarkis-Onofre R, Cenci TP, Opdam NJ, Demarco FF. Preference for using posts to restore endodontically treated teeth: findings from a survey with dentists. Braz Oral Res. 2015;29(1):1- 6.
16. Eckerbom M, Magnusson T. Restoring endodontically treated teeth: a survey of current opinions among board-certified prosthodontists and general dental practioners in Sweden. Int J Prosthodont. 2001;14(3):245-9.
17. Akbar I. Knowledge, Attitudes and practice of restoring endodontically treated teeth by dentists in north of Saudi Arabia. Int J Health Sci (Qassim). 2015;9(1):41-9.
18. Rabi TH. Attitudes of palestinian dentists toward restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2015;5(2):44-50.
19. Kavlekar AA, Aras MA, Chitre V. Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a survey among general practitioners, prosthodontists, and endodontists in India. J Contemp Dent. 2016;6(2):129-36.
20. Kon M, Zitzmann NU, Weiger R, Krastl G. Postendodontic restoration: A survey Among Dentists in Switzerland. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed. 2013;123(12):1076-82.
21. Zarone F, Sorrentino R, Apicella D, Valentino B, Ferrari M, Aversa R, et al. Evaluation of the biomechanical behavior of maxillary central incisors restored by means of endocrowns compared to a natural tooth: a 3D static linear finite elements analysis. Dent Mate. 2006;22(11):1035- 44.
22. Peroz I, Blankenstein F, Lange KP, Naumann M. Restoring endodontically treated teeth with posts and cores--a review. Quintessence Int. 2005;36(9):737-46.
23. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature – part i. composition and micro- and macrostructure alterations. Quintessence Int. 2007;38:733-43.
24. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: a literature review. J Prosthet Dent. 2003;90(6):556-62. 
25. Heydecke G, Peters MC. The restoration of endodontically treated, single-rooted teeth with cast or direct posts and cores: a systematic review. J Prosthet Dent. 2002;87(4):380-6.
26. Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Garcia-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Clinical studies of fiber posts: a literature review. Int J Prosthodont. 2008;21(4):328-36.
27. Theodosopoulou JN, Chochlidakis KM. A systematic review of dowel (post) and core materials and systems. J Prosthodont. 2009;18(6):464-72.
28. Naumann M, Kiessling S, Seemann R. Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A nationwide survey of dentists in Germany. J Prosthet Dent. 2006;96(5):332-8.
29. Scianamblo M. Restorations and endodontic success: the correlationship of post-endodontic restorations and endodontic success: rationale and materials. Endodontic Practice. 2002, p29-39.
30. Tjan AH, Grant BE, Dunn JR. Microleakage of composite resin cores treated with various dentin bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1991;66(1):24- 9.
31. Chan FW, Harcourt JK, Brockhurst PJ. The effect of post adaptation in the root canal on retention of posts cemented with various cements. Aust Dent J. 1993;38(1):39-45.
32. Nissan J, Dmitry Y, Assif D. The use of reinforced composite resin cement as compensation for reduced post length. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;86(3):304-8.
33. Mezzomo E, Massa F, Libera SD. Fracture  resistance of teeth restored with two different post- and-core designs cemented with two different  cements: an in vitro study, Part I. Quintessence Int. 2003;34(4):301-6.
34. Goldfein J, Speirs C, Matthew F, Amato R. Rubber dam use during post placement influences the success of root canal–treated teeth. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1481-4.
35. Nascimento GG, Correa MB, Opdam N, Demarco FF. Do clinical experience time and postgraduate training influence the choice of materials for posterior restorations? Results of a survey with Brazilian general dentists. Braz Dent J. 2013;24(6):642-6.
36. Brunthaler A, König F, Lucas T, Sperr W, Schedle A. Longevity of direct resin composite restorations in posterior teeth. Clin Oral Investig. 2003;7(2):63-70.
37. Burke FJ, Lucarotti PS, Holder R. Outcome of direct restorations placed within the general dental services in England and Wales (Part 4): influence of time and place. J Dent. 2005;33(10):837-47.
38. Demarco FF, Corrêa MB, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Opdam NJ. Longevity of posterior composite restorations: not only a matter of materials. Dent Mater. 2012;28(1):87-101.
39. Lynch CD, McConnell RJ, Wilson NH. Teaching the placement of posterior resin-based composite restorations in U.S. dental schools. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137(5):619-25.

Creative Commons License © The Authors, published by University of Sulaimani, College of Dentistry