Home | About Us | Editorial Board | Current Issue | Archives | Search | Instructions | Subscription | Feedback | e-Alerts | Login 
Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry Official publication of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
 Users Online: 1035  
 
  Print this page Email this page   Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size


 
  Table of Contents    
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 199-203
 

Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: A clinical study


1 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Amritsar, Punjab, India
2 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, DAV(C) Dental College and Hospital, Yamuna Nagar, Haryana, India
3 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India

Date of Web Publication25-Jul-2016

Correspondence Address:
Manjul Mehra
Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Sri Guru Ram Das Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Amritsar, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.186749

Rights and Permissions

 

   Abstract 

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to clinically evaluate and compare the efficacy and retention of various types of intracanal posts in the restoration of grossly decayed deciduous anterior teeth. The various posts used were polyethylene post, glass post, and composite post. Materials and Methods: A total number of 16 patients with 45 grossly decayed primary anterior teeth were selected. After biomechanical preparation and obturation, patients were randomly divided on the basis of posts to be used into three groups (Group I: Polyethylene post; Group II: Glass post, and Group III: Composite post). Then, space was created in the obturated canal and posts were placed, followed by core build up. Results: After an interval of 12 months, 86.67% of the teeth exhibited complete retention of the post restored with polyethylene post (P > 0.005) and 93.3% of the teeth exhibited complete retention of the post that were restored with glass post (P > 0.005) whereas only 60% of the teeth exhibited complete retention of the post that were restored with composite post (P< 0.005). Only 20% of the teeth exhibited marginal discoloration in both Groups I and III and 13.33% in Group II and this was nonsignificant. Conclusion: Both glass post and polyethylene post proved to be effective. Glass post showed the maximum retention and marginal adaptation followed by polyethylene post. Thus, it appears to be of potential interest for use especially in clinical pediatric dentistry.


Keywords: Caries, intracanal posts, primary anteriors


How to cite this article:
Mehra M, Grover R, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34:199-203

How to cite this URL:
Mehra M, Grover R, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, Gugnani N, Gupta M. Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: A clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent [serial online] 2016 [cited 2021 Apr 22];34:199-203. Available from: https://www.jisppd.com/text.asp?2016/34/3/199/186749



   Introduction Top


The restoration of primary incisors which are severely broken down by dental caries is often a difficult procedure that presents a special challenge to dentists. The development of carious lesions in primary maxillary incisors is often related to night-time feeding (breast or baby bottle), poor oral hygiene habits, and the consumption of a cariogenic diet after weaning.[1] Premature loss of carious primary incisors may affect the patterns of speech by interfering with the pronunciation of tongue-tip consonants (i.e., “t,” “d,”, “s,” “sh,” and “ch”) and the labial sounds of “f” and “v”. Other implications of the loss of primary incisors are decreased masticatory efficiency and the development of abnormal tongue habits and, potentially, subsequent malocclusion. The child may also suffer from psychological problems if esthetics are compromised.[2]

For the reconstruction of these primary anterior teeth, the dentist needs to seek a material that rebuilds the coronal part of the tooth making use of intracanal retention so as to achieve core retention and coronal stability for resisting the great occlusal forces to which children teeth are exposed.[3] The various root canal posts used in pediatric dentistry are orthodontic thread in the shape of alpha or gamma, metallic posts with macro retention, composites posts, and biological posts.

A custom-made “omega wire extension” placed inside the root cavity and fixed with a composite resin is another alternative. Although it is easier and inexpensive technique, it does not get an adequate adaptation to the canal wall, which may lead to radicular fracture on excessive masticatory forces.[4],[5]

The biological posts use natural extracted teeth that are prepared in a post shape for cementation in the root canal. The natural crowns offer outstanding anatomy and esthetics, but it needs the creation of a tooth bank and secure methods of sterilization and storage to ensure the safety of teeth.[6],[7]

The posts made with composite resin present a satisfactory esthetic result, but they have the risk of losing the retention due to polymerization contraction.[3],[8]

Viera et al.[9] used polyethylene ribbon fibers as root posts in the reconstruction of extremely destroyed primary anterior teeth. They are flexible, have a strong fracture resistance without generating stresses, and modulus of elasticity is also close to that of a dentin thus reducing the incidence of root fracture.

Glass fiber posts have also been introduced to repair grossly decayed teeth. These are composed of unidirectional glass fibers embedded in a resin matrix that strengthens the dowels without compromising the modulus of elasticity. Another advantage of glass fibers is that they distribute stresses over a broad surface area, increasing the load threshold.[10]

The present study was undertaken to clinically evaluate and compare the efficacy and retention of various types of intracanal posts in the restoration of grossly decayed deciduous anterior teeth.


   Materials and Methods Top


This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the DAV Dental College and Hospital Yamuna Nagar, India. The procedure and its possible discomfort and benefits were explained fully to the parents of the children involved and their written consent was obtained before the investigation. Children <5 years of age exhibiting grossly carious primary anterior teeth, maxillary or mandibular with at least one-third of the root present were selected. The teeth with excessive pathologic root resorption involving more than one-third of the root or radiographically visible internal root resorption were not included. According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total number of 16 patients with 45 grossly decayed primary anterior teeth were selected.

Endodontic treatment was accomplished in all the grossly decayed teeth and at the subsequent appointment, obturating material was removed 2-3 mm below the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) using a straight fissure bur. A length of at least 2 mm within the root or about one-third of the root length is needed for adequate retention for all posts placed in primary teeth and at least two-third of root length should be present below the post so that there is no interference in the process of eruption of the permanent teeth. We opted for doing relative isolation with the help of cotton rolls since the remaining tooth structure did not allow for absolute isolation with rubber dam. Then, the prepared cavity was acid etched for 15 s with a 37% phosphoric acid gel (3M), rinsed, dried and two coats of a dentin adhesive single bond (3M) were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. The tip of flowable composite (3M) was placed 2-3 mm apical. The CEJ and the composite were injected. The teeth were then built up with respective intracanal posts and randomly divided into three groups each comprising 15 teeth.

Group I

The material of choice for this group was 3 mm polyethylene fiber (RIBBOND). The necessary length of fiber for each tooth was achieved by measuring the intracanal length of each prepared root canal using a Williams's periodontal probe. The fiber was cut to approximately twice the measured depth for each canal and twice the height of the future coronary restoration so as to have a double thickness polyethylene fiber in canal for better reinforcement and to reduce the amount of cementing material. The polyethylene fiber was immersed in a bonding agent (3M single bond) as they are highly susceptible to surface contamination. Clean, cotton plier was used to handle the ribbon before the resin was applied to avoid contamination from operator hand. Polyethylene fibers were inserted into the canal with the help of plugger. The tip of fiber was folded back into the canal so as to have a double thickness polyethylene fiber in canal. The loop emerging out from the canal was used to build a core with Z100 composite.

Group II

Glass post (GLASSIX) was selected for this group. The post was cut with a diamond bur under water cooling system to approximately equal the measured depth for each canal and equal the height of the future coronary restoration. Then, glass post was inserted into the canal with cotton pliers and light cured. The coronary portion of the fiber was completely restored using resin composite (ZI00).

Group III

Canal was filled with flowable composite only without the application of any specific post. It was placed in several steps into the root canal and cured in increments. The crown was then built up free hand with Z100 composite and was finally finished with diamond finishing burs and composites polishing discs.

Patients were recalled after 3, 6, 9, and 12 months for evaluation of retention, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation. They were evaluated using modified Ryge criteria [Table 1]. The data were statistically analyzed using Chi-square test.
Table 1: Modified Ryge scale

Click here to view



   Observations and Results Top


[Table 2] shows the percentage number of teeth exhibiting complete retention and marginal adaptation at various time intervals. The polyethylene posts exhibited 100% retention and marginal adaptation after 3 and 6 months. This value decreased to 86.66% during 9 months and remained same after 12 months. Although few posts got fractured at 9 months, the difference in retention and marginal adaptation from 0 day to 9 months and from 0 day to 12 months was found to be nonsignificant (P > 0.05) [Table 3]. In Group II, glass post exhibited 100% retention and marginal adaptation after 3 and 6 months post insertion operative evaluation. This value decreased to 93.33% during 9 months and remained same at 12 months of postoperative evaluation. Although few post got fractured after 9 months, the difference in retention and marginal adaptation from 0 day to 9 months and from 0 day to 12 months was found to be nonsignificant (P > 0.05).
Table 2: Percentage number of teeth exhibiting complete retention and marginal adaptation at various time intervals

Click here to view
Table 3: Intragroup comparison for retention and marginal adaptation of various types of post from 0 day (D0) to 9 months (M9) and from 0 day (Do) to 12 months (M12) using Chi-square test

Click here to view


When intergroup comparison was made for glass post and polyethylene post, nonsignificant difference (P > 0.005) was observed after 9 and 12 months [Table 4].
Table 4: Intergroup comparison for retention of various type of post after 12 months (M12) using Chi-square test

Click here to view


In Group III, it was observed that composite posts exhibited 100% retention and marginal adaptation [Table 2] after 3 months and 86.67% during 6 months of postoperative evaluation. This value decreased to 73.33% during 9 months and after 12 months, further decreased to 60%. When 0 day values were compared with those of 9 months and of 12 months, significant alteration (P< 0.05) in the retention of posts was observed [Table 3].

When intergroup comparison was made for glass post and composite post after 9 months [Table 4], nonsignificant difference (P > 0.05) was observed. However, after 12 months, significant difference (P< 0.05) was observed whereas intergroup comparison between polyethylene post and composite post showed nonsignificant difference (P > 0.05).

When comparison for marginal discoloration was done, it was observed that no discolorations were observed among the three groups during 6 months interval [Table 5]. In both Groups I and III, only 13.33% of the teeth exhibited marginal discoloration and 6% in Group II after an interval of 9 months. After 12 months, 20% of the teeth exhibited marginal discoloration in both Groups I and III and 13.33% in Group II and this was nonsignificant according to Chi-square test [Table 6].
Table 5: Comparison between three group for the marginal discoloration scores

Click here to view
Table 6: Intragroup comparison for marginal discoloration of various type of post from 0 day (D0) to 9 months (M9) and from 0 day (D0) to 12 months (M12) using Chi-.square test

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


Clinically, the application of both glass post and polyethylene post to restore grossly destroyed primary incisors is a valuable clinical treatment option as shown in this study. Glass post showed the maximum retention and marginal adaptation followed by polyethylene post, and composite post showed the least retention and marginal adaptation. Although decrease in retention of posts was observed at various time intervals for all groups, the decrease in retention was significant only for composite post. When intergroup comparisons were made for the retention of different post, significant difference (P< 0.05) was observed between glass post and composite post whereas nonsignificant difference (P > 0.005) was observed when retention values for polyethylene post were compared with either of the two. Both glass post and polyethylene post increase the surface area of tooth structure, i.e., intraradicularly, where adhesion of the bonding of tooth structure is enhanced.[11] Again, the use of glass post and polyethylene post together with flowable composite and bonding agent offers an alternative where all components are bonded to form a firmly attached restoration unit.[12],[13] This technique utilizes the coronal portion of the root, which is the strongest part of the root to transmit any functional stresses and may add to success.[12] The results were in accordance to Viera et al. They used the polyethylene fibers for the reconstruction of decayed upper anterior primary teeth. After 1 year, they found complete retention of all post. Similar results were observed by Rocha Rde et al. 2004.[14]

Glass post was made of braided glass fibers in a multiaxial arrangement and resin bonding matrix (epoxy resin with approximately 65% glass fiber content) providing high resistance to bending and torsion forces. This combination creates a durable alternative to metal, with increased flexural strength.[15] Also, during manufacturing, they were pretreated with organosilanes that act as chemical coupling agents between dental resin and the glass.[16] The composite which surrounds the fibers combines chemically with the flowable composite and the composite used for the core build-up. This allows that the glass post, the composite and the root dentine are securely bonded together and they all offer similar levels of resilience and form a firmly attached restorative unit. As a result, shocks and stress are borne by the entire root and absorbed by the dentine just as they are in a normally healthy, nonrestored tooth. Sharaf [12] used the glass post for the reconstruction of decayed upper anterior primary teeth. After 1 year, they found complete retention of all post. Laboratory studies have also demonstrated that this technique significantly improved the fracture resistance of teeth.

The polyethylene fibers have a very good adaptation to the composite because during manufacturing, they are plasma treated to enhance their chemical bonding to any composite system. The plasma treatment of the fibers ablates (etches) and chemically activates the fibers to allow them to chemically bond to dental resins creating a polymeric hybrid that functions as a laminate.[17],[18]

Despite the high overall success rate of both glass post and polyethylene post, one case showed loss of the restoration in Group I (14%) because of trauma and in Group II (7%) because of biting on hard foods such as sugar cane.

The composite post showed the least retention and marginal adaptation. This can be explained due to resin polymerization contraction, enhancing microleakage and leading to possible fractures. There were also some iatrogenic factors such as trauma, dietary habits which were responsible for the low retention rate. Another factor which can be attributed to failure was bonding between post and composite.[19]

All of them exhibited superficial staining which could have been due to plaque accumulation or due to extrusive factor such as green stains due to chromogenic bacteria or yellow stains due to bile pigments from gingival crevicular fluid. They generally occur on the labial surface of incisors and canines in both upper and lower jaw.[20] Refinishing and repolishing procedure could remove all the discoloration. Both glass post and polyethylene post are translucent, practically colorless, and disappear within the composite or acrylic without show-through. They offer excellent esthetics; its translucency also allows the use of light cured composites.


   Conclusion Top


  • Although there was decrease in retention of posts with time for all groups, the decrease in retention was significant only for composite post.
  • Glass post showed the maximum retention and marginal adaptation followed by polyethylene post. Composite post showed the least retention and marginal adaptation.
  • Teeth restored with glass post showed the least marginal discoloration whereas polyethylene post and composite post showed equal marginal discoloration scores.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Ripa LW. Nursing caries: A comprehensive review. Pediatr Dent 1988;10:268-82.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Ngan P, Fields H. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning in the primary dentition. ASDC J Dent Child 1995;62:25-33.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Island G, White GE. Polyethylene ribbon fibers: A new alternative for restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:151-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28:187-92.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Usha M, Deepak V, Venkat S, Gargi M. Treatment of severely mutilated incisors: A challenge to the pedodontist. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25 Issue 5 (Supplement):S34-6.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Ramires-Romito AC, Wanderley MT, Oliveira MD, Imparato JC, Corrêa MS. Biologic restoration of primary anterior teeth. Quintessence Int 2000;31:405-11.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Mandroli PS. Biologic restoration of primary anterior teeth: A case report. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2003;21:95-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Shetty T, Bhat Sudhakar G, Shetty P. Aesthetic material. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2005;5:122-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
  Medknow Journal  
9.
Viera CL, Ribeiro CC. Polyethylene fiber tape used as a post and core in decayed primary anterior teeth: A treatment option. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26:1-4.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Sunny R. Glass fiber reinforced composite resin as an intracanal post – a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32:207-10.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Fracture strengths of three core restorative materials supported with or without a prefabricated split-shank post. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:560-5.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Sharaf AA. The application of fiber core post in restoring grossly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26:217-24.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Goldberg AJ, Freilich MA. An innovative pre-impregnated glass fiber for reinforcing composites. Dent Clin North Am 1999;43:127-33, vi-vii.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Rocha Rde O, das Neves LT, Marotti NR, Wanderley MT, Corrêa MS. Intracanal reinforcement fiber in pediatric dentistry: A case report. Quintessence Int 2004;35:263-8.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Krasteva K. Clinical application of a fiber-reinforced post system. J Endod 2001;27:132-3.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Metha D, Gulati A, Basappa N, Raju OS. Esthetic rehabilitation of severely decayed primary incisors using glass fiber reinforced composite: A case report. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012;79:22-5.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Mehra M, Grover R. Glassfiber post: An alternative for restoring grossly decayed primary incisors. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012;5:159-62.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Belvedere PC. Single-sitting, fiber-reinforced fixed bridges for the missing lateral or central incisors in adolescent patients. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:665-82, ix.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pithan S, Vieira Rde S, Chain MC. Tensile bond strength of intracanal posts in primary anterior teeth: An in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;27:35-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Finn SB. Periodontal Diseases in Children, Clinical Pedodontics. 4th ed., Vol. 13. W.B. Saunders; 2004. p. 286-307.  Back to cited text no. 20
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6]



 

Top
Print this article  Email this article
 

    

 
  Search
 
  
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Article in PDF (415 KB)
    Citation Manager
    Access Statistics
    Reader Comments
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
    Observations and...
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed4918    
    Printed104    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded741    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


Contact us | Sitemap | Advertise | What's New | Copyright and Disclaimer 
  2005 - Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry | Published by Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 
Online since 1st May '05