Key Words
Dental restoration failure, endodontically treated teeth,
meta-analysis, post and core technique
refabricated fiber-reinforced posts have become more popular than cast posts for
clinical usage in recent years. This may be caused by enhanced esthetics and a
reduction in treatment time. Another factor may be that the elastic modulus between
fiber posts and dentin is similar, which has been related to a reduced incidence of
root fractures (1, 2). Several in vitro studies have shown that because of their high
elastic modulus, metal posts concentrate stress on the root and promote a higher
incidence of root fractures compared with fiber posts (3). In contrast, a recent study
with finite element analysis has shown that the use of fiber posts resulted in higher stress
on root structures compared with metal posts, primarily when the bonding between the
fiber posts and the root canal surface failed (ie, debonding) (4). However, the same
study showed that fiber postrestored roots were less prone to fracture because the
risk of fracture of the core and/or post is higher than that of the root.
Clinically, a reduced incidence of catastrophic failures, which does not permit the
replacement of the restoration, can be more important than the survival rate of the
restoration. However, the aim of most reviews on intraradicular posts has been to evaluate the survival rate. Thus, the aim of this systematic review was to analyze the outcome
of clinical trials and cohort studies evaluating the post-retained restorations regarding
the incidence rate of root fractures. The hypothesis is that the incidence rate of root
fractures related to the use of metal posts is higher than that of fiber posts. This study
also aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of the systems regarding their survival
rate.
Eligibility Criteria
Clinical studies reporting the incidence of root fractures of restorations retained
with fiber-reinforced composite posts or metal posts of endodontically treated teeth
were considered eligible for inclusion in this systematic review. Articles were selected
if they met the following criteria: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and cohort studies
comparing the incidence of root fractures of metallic and fiber-reinforced composite
posts, RCTs and cohort studies in which 1 arm reported the incidence of root fracture
of 1 system, and RCTs and cohort studies with a mean/median of follow-up time of
5 years.
Studies from which we were unable to extract data for the outcomes of interest,
in vitro studies, reviews, and studies with a mean/median of follow-up time of less
than 5 years were excluded. Whenever more than 1 publication reported results for
the same group of patients, we included only the report containing the most comprehensive data to avoid the duplication of information.
Search Strategy
A MEDLINE search for RCTs and cohort studies was conducted from inception (no
limit regarding the year of publication) to January 2014 using the following key terms:
(nonvital tooth OR devitalized tooth OR pulpless tooth OR endodontically
Review Article
Figueiredo et al.
Review Article
TABLE 1. Summary Characteristics of Included Studies
Eligible studies
No. of unique studies
Median (IQR) follow-up (y)
Participants
Total no. of participants
Median (IQR) no. of participants
% female
Post system
Metal-based posts (no. of studies)
Fiber-reinforced posts (no. of studies)
Post years of follow-up*
Outcome (no. of events)
Root fractures
Noncatastrophic failures
All studies
7
6.7 (5.97.8)
7
10.0 (8.610.0)
14
8.2 (6.610.0)
874
91.0 (59.0151.0)
54.9
2328
99.0 (78.5515.0)
68.4
3202
95.0 (75.3173.8)
65.2
4
5
7427
4
3
34 294
8
8
41 721
8
54
54
413
62
467
was considered a measure of high heterogeneity (11). Subgroup analyses according to the study design (RCT cohort), sample size
(<100 posts $100 posts), and post system (metal postrestored
roots cast metal postrestored roots, reinforced carbon fiber
postrestored roots reinforced glass fiber postrestored roots)
were conducted to explore any potential source of heterogeneity between studies. For a meta-analysis of the survival rate, a stratified analysis according to the follow-up time was performed.
The pooled estimate of the rates was calculated using the
fixed-effects or random-effects models depending on the betweenstudy heterogeneity. In the absence of high heterogeneity, a fixedeffects model using the Mantel-Haenszel method was selected to pool
the data, assuming that there was a common effect size and that the differences between single results were caused by chance. When high heterogeneity was observed, the pooled estimates and the corresponding
95% CIs were calculated based on the random-effects model using the
DerSimonian-Laird method. In the random-effects meta-analysis model,
the rates for individual studies were assumed to vary around pooled estimates (12). The forest plot was used to present the pooled estimates and
the 95% CIs graphically. Each study was represented by a square in the
plot that was proportional to the studys weight in the meta-analysis. Twosided P values <.05 were considered statistically significant.
A funnel plot was created by plotting the individual estimates in log
units against the standard error. To assess publication bias, contourenhanced funnel plots were examined, and their symmetry was tested
using the Begg and Mazumbar rank correlation with continuity correction (13). Leave-one-out sensitivity analysis was conducted by omitting 1 study at a time and examining the influence of each individual
study on the pooled effect size (14).
Results
Search Results and Study Characteristics
The literature search resulted in 255 articles, 20 of which were
defined as potentially relevant to the current analysis. Of these, 9
were excluded in the subsequent detailed assessments for the reasons
shown in Figure 1. No dissertation or thesis was retrieved from the
OpenThesis database. Three other articles were included after searching the references and adding these articles to the remaining 11 studies,
resulting in a total of 14 studies (6, 1527) that met our eligibility
criteria and were included in the meta-analysis. The 14 studies (7
RCTs and 7 cohort studies) included in the present analysis were
Root Fracture of Post-retained Restorations
Review Article
TABLE 2. Risk of Bias of Included Studies
Quality of cohorts using the Newcastle-Ottawa quality scale
Outcome
Selection
Cohort, year
Representative
sample size
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Selection of
a comparison
group
Ascertainment
of exposure by
secure records
Outcome not
present at
beginning
of study
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Confounders
and other
factors
Assessment
of outcome
Was follow-up
long enough?
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
Follow-up
rate $90%
+
+
Random
sequence
generation
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
High Risk
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
High risk
Unclear risk
Performance
Detection
Attrition
Reporting
Allocation
concealment
Blinding of
participant
and personnel
Blinding of
outcome
assessment
Incomplete
outcome data
Selective
reporting
Other
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
Low Risk
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
Unclear risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
Low risk
High risk
High risk
Unclear risk
High risk
Unclear risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
High risk
Unclear risk
High risk
Low risk
High risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
Low risk
High risk
High risk
Low risk
High risk
High risk
Risk of Bias
Randomization and allocation concealment procedures were
inadequate or unclear in the trials included in the systematic review.
Failures in randomization and allocation concealment allow the clinician to predict the upcoming treatment allocation, thereby leading to
selection bias. In addition, except in the study performed by Sterzenbach et al (26), neither the patients nor the investigators were blinded
to the treatment received, and the trials were classified as having a high
risk of performance and detection bias. Only 1 study (16) had no attrition bias, and a low risk of reporting bias was observed for all trials. The
absence of descriptions regarding the amount of coronal remaining
and/or tooth location was also considered a bias. The quality assessment of the included trials is shown in detail in Table 2.
The risk of bias among cohort studies is reported in Table 2. The
sample size was considered representative in all cohort studies, but in
only 3 studies (17, 19, 20) was a comparison group selected. The
ascertainment of exposure through secure records and demonstration
that the outcome of interest was not present at the start of the study
were observed for all cohorts. The methods used to control for
confounding were not described, and a high risk of performance bias
was observed. However, outcome assessment by clinical and
radiographic examination was described for most studies. Although
the follow-up time was long enough to produce root fractures and noncatastrophic failures, only 2 cohort studies (19, 24) described that a loss
to follow-up was unlikely to introduce bias.
Incidence Rate of Root Fracture
Data on the incidence rate of root fractures for metal-based posts
were extractable from 4 RCTs (15, 16, 21, 26) and 4 cohort studies
4
Figueiredo et al.
(1820, 27). The pooled event rate per 1000 post years was 5.13
(95% CI, 4.056.21), but important heterogeneity was observed
across studies (P < .001, I2 = 99.8%). For fiber-reinforced posts,
data on the incidence rate of root fractures were extractable from 5
RCTs (6, 21, 22, 25, 26) and 3 cohort studies (17, 23, 24). The
pooled estimate per 1000 post years was 4.78 (95% CI, 4.285.27).
Moreover, interstudy heterogeneity was high (P < .001, I2 = 100%)
(Fig. 2).
The incidence rate of root fractures for prefabricated metal posts
and carbon fiber posts was 2-fold higher compared with cast metal
posts and glass fiber posts (Figs. 2 and 3). However, subgroup
analysis failed to define the reasons for heterogeneity (Table 3). There
was no evidence of publication bias, as suggested by visual inspection of
the funnel plot and the Begg and Mazumbar rank correlation (P = .063
for metal-based posts, P = .107 for fiber-reinforced posts). The sensitivity analysis showed that the pooled event rate for both systems did not
change substantially with the exclusion of any one study, thereby indicating that the meta-analyses were not compromised in any way.
Review Article
Figure 2. A forest plot and funnel plot for the incidence rate of root fractures according to the post system.
Figure 3. A forest plot and funnel plot for the incidence rate of noncatastrophic failures according to the post system.
Review Article
TABLE 3. Subgroup Analysis to Investigate Differences between Studies Included in the Meta-analysis for Incidence Rate (/1000 post years) of Root Fracture and
Noncatastrophic Failures
Root fracture
Pooled estimates
Source
Metal-based posts
Study design
RCT
Cohort
Sample size
<100 posts
$100 posts
Post-system
Prefabricated
metal post
Cast metal post
Fiber-reinforced posts
Study design
RCT
Cohort
Sample size
<100 posts
>100 posts
Post system
Glass fiber
Carbon fiber
Noncatastrophic failures
Tests of
heterogeneity
Pooled estimates
Tests of
heterogeneity
No. of
studies
IR
95% CI
P value
(Q test)
I2 (%)
No. of
studies
IR
95% CI
P value
(Q test)
I2 (%)
4
4
5.01
5.25
2.287.74
3.896.60
<.001
<.001
99.7
99.9
4
3
6.93
20.35
3.1110.75
12.4328.26
<.001
<.001
99.9
100
5
3
4.66
5.92
2.946.35
4.377.48
<.001
<.001
99.6
99.9
5
2
14.60
7.93
4.1125.09
2.3313.52
<.001
<.001
100
100
5.52
4.386.66
<.001
99.9
12.80
9.1316.48
<.001
100
3.39
0.61 to 7.39
<.001
99.9
22.09
7.3936.79
<.001
100
5
3
2.91
8.19
1.674.16
3.2013.18
<.001
<.001
99.9
100
5
3
15.98
25.08
6.4425.53
6.8943.27
<.001
<.001
100
100
3
5
10.89
1.31
0.8920.88
0.961.66
<.001
<.001
100
99.9
3
5
24.35
16.43
5.2843.41
9.0023.86
<.001
<.001
100
100
3
5
3.58
5.69
0.626.54
3.467.91
<.001
<.001
100
100
3
5
14.17
22.56
4.86 to 33.20
15.0430.08
<.001
<.001
100
100
CI, confidence interval; IR, incidence rate; RCT, randomized clinical trial.
rate for the adjusted and unadjusted data sets did not change substantially with the exclusion of any one study. The results of the sensitivity
analysis exclude the possibility of bias and confirm the robustness of
effect sizes.
Discussion
The results of this systematic review show similarities between the
incidences of catastrophic failures among metal and fiber postretained
restorations. There was a higher incidence of noncatastrophic failures
for fiber postrestored roots, but the survival rate was similar for both
types of posts. This systematic review included both clinical trials and
observational cohort studies, resulting in high levels of heterogeneity
among studies. Few studies evaluating metal and fiber posts were found
in the literature. Thus, considering the necessity of comparing these
types of posts, the 1-arm design for data analysis was performed.
Even the subgroup analyses did not identify the sources of heterogeneity, and the use of the 1-arm design for data analysis could explain the
high heterogeneity observed in the meta-analyses in the present study.
Interestingly, the survival rate analysis showed that the type of metal post
(cast or prefabricated) partially explained the interstudy heterogeneity
in this group. The same was not observed between the types of fiber
Figure 4. A forest plot and funnel plot for the survival rate of post systems.
Figueiredo et al.
Review Article
TABLE 4. Stratified Analysis Based on Periods of Follow-up according to the Post Systems*
Period of follow-up
Post-system/study
Metal post
Prefabricated metal post
Sterzenbach et al, 2012
mez-Polo et al, 2010
Go
Hikasa et al, 2010
Jung et al, 2007
Creugers et al, 2005
Ellner et al, 2003
King et al, 2003
Weine et al, 1991
Subgroup survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
Cast metal posts
mez-Polo et al, 2010
Go
Hikasa et al, 2010
Jung et al, 2007
Ellner et al, 2003
Subgroup survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
Overall survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
Fiber post
Carbon fiber
Ferrari et al, 2007
m et al, 2006
Segerstro
Mannocci et al, 2005
King et al, 2003
Subgroup survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
Glass fiber
Sterzenbach et al, 2012
Naumann et al, 2012
Ferrari et al, 2012
Signore et al, 2009
Subgroup survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
Overall survival rate
Heterogeneity (Q test; I2)
02 y
2.14 y
4.16 y
6.18 y
8.110 y
10.115 y
99.3 (98.899.6)
100.0 (76.2100.0)
99.3 (98.799.6)
P = .217; 34.5%
97.0 (96.197.7)
100.0 (71.7100.0)
97.0 (96.197.7)
P = .814; 0.0%
93.5 (81.797.9)
94.2 (93.095.3)
96.0 (85.999.0)
100.0 (71.7100.0)
94.2 (93.195.2)
P = .939; 0.0%
91.4 (90.092.6)
89.0 (55.098.2)
91.4 (90.092.6)
P = .778; 0.0%
84.6 (66.994.9)
86.6 (84.988.1)
93.5 (92.394.6)
92.0 (67.599.6)
89.0 (55.098.2)
93.5 (88.0-96.6)
87.0 (85.588.5)
P = .893; 0.0%
78.7 (76.880.6)
89.0 (56.199.4)
78.7 (76.880.6)
P = .417; 0.0%
97.0 (94.998.4)
97.0 (94.998.4)
NA
98.3 (94.299.5)
P = .001; 84.8%
93.7 (91.095.9)
93.7 (91.095.9)
NA
96.2 (95.397.0)
P = .010; 78.4%
89.6 (86.192.3)
89.6 (86.192.3)
NA
93.0 (89.495.4)
P = .027; 63.6%
82.5 (78.486.1)
82.5 (78.486.1)
NA
87.9 (77.793.7)
P < .001; 92.2%
82.6 (73.589.5)
75.5 (71.079.7)
90.2 (78.196.8)
100.0 (80.7100.0)
82.0 (72.588.7)
P = .073; 56.9%
87.0 (81.691.0)
P < .001; 77.9%
55.4 (50.360.4)
55.4 (50.360.4)
NA
72.7 (50.287.6)
P < .001; 97.6%
93.8 (72.899.7)
93.8 (72.899.7)
NA
85.7 (60.397.5)
85.7 (60.397.5)
NA
90.0 (82.894.4)
78.6 (52.194.2)
88.1 (81.192.8)
P = .192; 41.2%
92.0 (90.193.6)
65.0 (55.173.7)
71.0 (45.487.8)
79.5 (48.194.2)
P < .001; 96.7%
71.0 (45.487.8)
71.0 (45.487.8)
NA
NA
NA
NA
93.8 (72.899.7)
NA
NA
NA
85.7 (60.397.5)
NA
90.2 (77.596.1)
90.2 (78.196.8)
NA
89.1 (83.293.0)
P = .514; 0.0%
71.0 (64.976.4)
98.5 (97.099.3)
92.6 (33.299.7)
P < .001; 98.6%
86.0 (67.694.7)
P < .001; 97.3%
46.0 (38.254.0)
46.0 (38.154.7)
NA
54.6 (31.076.2)
P = .118; 49.2%
NA
NA
NA
NA
posts (carbon or glass fiber) when the survival rate was analyzed,
thereby stratifying the period of follow-up.
Despite the heterogeneity, meta-analyses of the outcomes were
performed. According to Dwyer et al (28), the decision to combine
the results of individual studies in the presence of heterogeneity depends on the aim of the particular overview that is being undertaken.
If the aim is to identify the direction of a possible association, as performed in the present study associating the type of posts and the incidence of failures, then even with observational data, a meta-analysis
appears to be appropriate.
A recent meta-analysis of in vitro studies (3) evaluating the fracture strength of roots restored with metal or fiber posts showed higher
values for metal posts, whereas the use of this last type of post resulted in
more catastrophic failures. Higher fracture strength can indicate longer
longevity under clinical function. The results of our meta-analysis of
clinical studies showed a higher survival rate for metal posts than for
fiber posts, primarily for longer periods of follow-up. However, the results of the present meta-analysis regarding the incidence rate of catastrophic failure contradict those observed for in vitro studies. In
contrast to the in vitro studies, a similarity in the incidence rate of catastrophic failures was observed among metal and fiber posts. Interestingly, when only clinical trials are analyzed, metal posts showed a
higher incidence rate of catastrophic failures. The opposite was
observed for cohort studies. Another interesting observation on subgroup analysis was the tendency to reduce catastrophic failures and increase noncatastrophic failures when cast posts (for metal based) and
JOE Volume -, Number -, - 2015
glass fiber posts (for fiber reinforced) were used. Regardless of the CI,
no significant difference was observed.
Only studies using follow-up periods longer than 5 years were
included in the present meta-analysis. A recent recommendation for
conducting controlled trials on dental materials (29) advised an observational period of longer than 5 years for indirect restorations in clinical
studies. All studies included in this systematic review used indirect
restoration to restore the tooth that received the post, requiring
follow-up periods longer than 5 years to assess the success of the restorative procedure. Furthermore, some clinical studies that were excluded
because of shorter follow-up periods were older publications of
included studies that reported on the same patients.
Some limitations should be acknowledged in this meta-analysis.
First, almost all of the observational studies that met the inclusion criteria
were retrospective cohort studies, which have less control over the subject selection and measurements and the risk for confounding. However,
cohort studies often include more subjects and have a longer follow-up
time. In addition, in regard to assessing harm, such as the incidence of
failures, these types of studies are a good source of data. Second, studies
that suffer from a high risk of bias were not excluded from the metaanalysis. This decision was made because of the lack of unbiased studies
that met the inclusion criteria for this review. Finally, we were unable to
explore the risk factors for the outcomes of interest, such as the amounts
of coronal remaining, the presence of a ferule effect, the location of the
tooth, and occlusion features. Unfortunately, these risk factors were not
described in most of the included studies.
Review Article
In conclusion, the results of the present systematic review based
on clinical studies do not support the indication of fiber-reinforced
posts based on a reduction of catastrophic failures. However, this review
also showed the need for further well-designed clinical studies evaluating intraradicular posts.
Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References
1. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core
and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:6119.
2. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent
J 2003;195:438. discussion 37.
3. Zhou L, Wang Q. Comparison of fracture resistance between cast posts and fiber
posts: a meta-analysis of literature. J Endod 2013;39:115.
4. Santos AF, Meira JB, Tanaka CB, et al. Can fiber posts increase root stresses and
reduce fracture? J Dent Res 2010;89:58791.
5. Zicari F, Van Meerbeek B, Debels E, et al. An up to 3-year controlled clinical trial
comparing the outcome of glass fiber posts and composite cores with gold alloybased posts and cores for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Int J Prosthodont 2011;24:36372.
6. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Fadda GM, et al. A randomized controlled trial of endodontically
treated and restored premolars. J Dent Res 2012;91:72S8.
7. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaborations tool for
assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
8. Wells GA, Shea B, OConnell D, et al. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-analyses. Canada: Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, University of Ottawa; 2000.
9. Bhaumik DK, Amatya A, Normand S-L, et al. Meta-analysis of rare binary adverse
event data. J Am Stat Assoc 2012;107:55567.
10. Cochran WG. The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics
1954;10:101.
11. Higgins JPT, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med
2002;21:153958.
12. Borenstein M, Hedges LV, Higgins JPT, Rothstein HR. A basic introduction to fixedeffect and random-effects models for meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods 2010;1:
97111.
13. Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics 1994;50:1088101.
Figueiredo et al.
14. Sterne JAC, Egger M, Smith GD. Investigating and dealing with publication and other
biases in meta-analysis. BMJ 2001;323:1015.
15. Creugers NHJ, Kreulen CM, Fokkinga WA. A 5-year prospective clinical study on core
restorations without covering crowns. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:401.
16. Ellner S, Bergendal T, Bergman B. Four post-and-core combinations as abutments
for fixed single crowns: a prospective up to 10-year study. Int J Prosthodont 2003;
16:24954.
17. Ferrari M, Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, et al. Long-term retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2007;20:28791.
18. Gomez-Polo M, Llido B, Rivero A, et al. A 10-year retrospective study of the survival
rate of teeth restored with metal prefabricated posts versus cast metal posts and
cores. J Dent 2010;38:91620.
19. Hikasa T, Matsuka Y, Mine A, et al. A 15-year clinical comparative study of the cumulative survival rate of cast metal core and resin core restorations luted with adhesive resin cement. Int J Prosthodont 2010;23:397405.
20. Jung RE, Kalkstein O, Sailer I, et al. A comparison of composite post buildups and
cast gold post-and-core buildups for the restoration of nonvital teeth after 5 to 10
years. Int J Prosthodont 2007;20:639.
21. King PA, Setchell DJ, Rees JS. Clinical evaluation of a carbon fibre reinforced carbon
endodontic post. J Oral Rehabil 2003;30:7859.
22. Mannocci F, Qualtrough AJE, Worthington HV, et al. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and
resin composite: five-year results. Oper Dent 2005;30:915.
23. 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;38:4325.
24. Segerstrom S, Astback J, Ekstrand KD. A retrospective long term study of teeth
restored with prefabricated carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin posts. Swed Dent
J 2006;30:18.
25. Signore A, Benedicenti S, Kaitsas V, et al. Long-term survival of endodontically
treated, maxillary anterior teeth restored with either tapered or parallel-sided
glass-fiber posts and full-ceramic crown coverage. J Dent 2009;37:11521.
26. Sterzenbach G, Franke A, Naumann M. Rigid versus flexible dentine-like endodontic
postsclinical testing of a biomechanical concept: seven-year results of a randomized controlled clinical pilot trial on endodontically treated abutment teeth with severe hard tissue loss. J Endod 2012;38:155763.
27. Weine FS, Wax AH, Wenckus CS. Retrospective study of tapered, smooth post systems
in place for 10 years or more. J Endod 1991;17:2937.
28. Dwyer T, Couper D, Walter SD. Sources of heterogeneity in the meta-analysis of
observational studies: the example of SIDS and sleeping position. J Clin
Epidemiol 2001;54:4407.
29. Hickel R, Roulet J-F, Bayne S, et al. Recommendations for conducting controlled
clinical studies of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Investig 2007;11:533.