Fracture Resistance of Polyethylene Fiber Posts vs. Prefabricated Glass Fiber Posts in Restoration of Root Canal-Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.

IF 4.1 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Farzaneh Shirani, Soroush Talakesh, Mostafa Farajzadeh, Matin Tayaran, Pedram Iranmanesh, Farin Kiany, Amirhossein Vedaei
{"title":"Fracture Resistance of Polyethylene Fiber Posts vs. Prefabricated Glass Fiber Posts in Restoration of Root Canal-Treated Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.","authors":"Farzaneh Shirani, Soroush Talakesh, Mostafa Farajzadeh, Matin Tayaran, Pedram Iranmanesh, Farin Kiany, Amirhossein Vedaei","doi":"10.1111/jerd.70006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the fracture resistance of polyethylene fiber posts and prefabricated glass fiber posts in root canal-treated, single-rooted permanent teeth. By analyzing in vitro studies, it addresses gaps in fiber post system research.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library (until May 2024) identified in vitro studies comparing these post types. The risk of bias was assessed using Sarkis-Onofre et al. and Alhajj et al.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A meta-analysis estimated pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (PROSPERO: CRD42022362407).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 622 studies, nine were included. Polyethylene fiber posts had significantly lower fracture resistance (SMD = -1.77, 95% CI: -2.98 to -0.57). Meta-regression showed no impact of force speed or load angle. Subgroup analysis highlighted significant effects of tooth type, storage media, post length, periodontal ligament (PDL) simulation, ferrule, and crown placement. Additionally, fractures in teeth restored with polyethylene fiber posts tended to be more repairable.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Polyethylene fiber posts exhibited lower fracture resistance than prefabricated glass fiber posts. However, multiple factors influence outcomes, highlighting the need for further research and standardization.</p>","PeriodicalId":15988,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jerd.70006","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the fracture resistance of polyethylene fiber posts and prefabricated glass fiber posts in root canal-treated, single-rooted permanent teeth. By analyzing in vitro studies, it addresses gaps in fiber post system research.

Materials and methods: A systematic search of PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane Library (until May 2024) identified in vitro studies comparing these post types. The risk of bias was assessed using Sarkis-Onofre et al. and Alhajj et al.

Methods: A meta-analysis estimated pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) (PROSPERO: CRD42022362407).

Results: Out of 622 studies, nine were included. Polyethylene fiber posts had significantly lower fracture resistance (SMD = -1.77, 95% CI: -2.98 to -0.57). Meta-regression showed no impact of force speed or load angle. Subgroup analysis highlighted significant effects of tooth type, storage media, post length, periodontal ligament (PDL) simulation, ferrule, and crown placement. Additionally, fractures in teeth restored with polyethylene fiber posts tended to be more repairable.

Conclusions: Polyethylene fiber posts exhibited lower fracture resistance than prefabricated glass fiber posts. However, multiple factors influence outcomes, highlighting the need for further research and standardization.

聚乙烯纤维桩与预制玻璃纤维桩在根管治疗牙齿修复中的抗断裂性:体外研究的系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:系统回顾和荟萃分析比较聚乙烯纤维桩和预制玻璃纤维桩在根管治疗的单根恒牙中的抗折断性。通过分析体外研究,解决了纤维桩系统研究的空白。材料和方法:系统检索PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase和Cochrane Library(截止2024年5月),确定了比较这些帖子类型的体外研究。使用Sarkis-Onofre等人和Alhajj等人评估偏倚风险。方法:荟萃分析估计95%置信区间(CIs)的合并标准化平均差异(SMD) (PROSPERO: CRD42022362407)。结果:在622项研究中,纳入了9项。聚乙烯纤维桩的抗断裂性显著降低(SMD = -1.77, 95% CI: -2.98至-0.57)。元回归显示力速度和载荷角度没有影响。亚组分析强调了牙齿类型、储存介质、桩长度、牙周韧带(PDL)模拟、卡箍和冠放置的显著影响。此外,用聚乙烯纤维桩修复的牙齿骨折更容易修复。结论:聚乙烯纤维桩的抗断裂性能低于预制玻璃纤维桩。然而,影响结果的因素很多,因此需要进一步研究和标准化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry
Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
124
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry (JERD) is the longest standing peer-reviewed journal devoted solely to advancing the knowledge and practice of esthetic dentistry. Its goal is to provide the very latest evidence-based information in the realm of contemporary interdisciplinary esthetic dentistry through high quality clinical papers, sound research reports and educational features. The range of topics covered in the journal includes: - Interdisciplinary esthetic concepts - Implants - Conservative adhesive restorations - Tooth Whitening - Prosthodontic materials and techniques - Dental materials - Orthodontic, periodontal and endodontic esthetics - Esthetics related research - Innovations in esthetics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信