Journal of Dental Medicine

Statement Problem: A few studies have been conducted about bioglass posts.
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare bioglass posts with prefabricated metallic posts in clinical performance of extensive composite restorations for anterior endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and Methods: Sixty endodontocally maxillary anterior teeth, with horizontally or vertically destruction, were selected. Teeth were divided into two groups based on the kind of post: Metallic prefabricated parapost and bioglass post. Each group was divided into three subgroups based on anterior bite: normal, deep bite and edge to edge. Gutta-percha was removed from 2/3 of canal length for parapost and 1/3 for bioglass post. After etching with phosphoric-acid (37%) and applying dentine bonding syntac, Duo cement was used for the adhesion of bioglass post and a self cured composite (Degufil) for parapost. Restoration was done with a hybrid composite (Heliomolar). Follow up studies, radio-graphically and clinically, were done every three months for a 1.5-year period. Exact Fisher and Pearson tests were used for data analysis.
Results: Apical lesion was not observed in any of the radiographs. Post seal was increased by resin cement and dentin bonding agent. Post type did not significantly affect on the clinical success rate of the restorations. The retention of restoration, for both posts, was the same. Crown destruction had no significant effect on success rate. The type of anterior bite had a significant effect on success rate, as the total 6.6% failure rate was related to the patients with anterior deep bite.
Conclusion: It is suggested to use metallic paraposts and bioglass posts, in extensive composite restorations for patients with deep-bite, more conservatively.