Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Failure Patterns Among All-Resin Post and Core Designs: In vitro Study.

IF 1.8 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry Pub Date : 2026-03-05 eCollection Date: 2026-01-01 DOI:10.2147/CCIDE.S560921
Mosa Altassan, Ruwaida Z Alshali, Osamah Abdulelah Alsulimani, Shooq Alharbi, Bashayer Murdi Alzaharni, Abdullah Fouad Abukhudhayr, Abdulmajeed Ghazi Alghanemi
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Failure Patterns Among All-Resin Post and Core Designs: In vitro Study.","authors":"Mosa Altassan, Ruwaida Z Alshali, Osamah Abdulelah Alsulimani, Shooq Alharbi, Bashayer Murdi Alzaharni, Abdullah Fouad Abukhudhayr, Abdulmajeed Ghazi Alghanemi","doi":"10.2147/CCIDE.S560921","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This in vitro study evaluated the fracture resistance of dual-cure resin cement and core build-up material (Core-X<sup>®</sup> Flow) used as all-resin posts of two different lengths, compared with conventional fiber-reinforced posts, and to analyze failure patterns.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Thirty extracted human single-rooted mature teeth (premolars, canines, and maxillary central incisors) were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to three groups (n=10). Group A received a 10 mm fiber post with Core-X Flow, Group B received a 10 mm all-resin post with Core-X flow, and Group C received a 5 mm all-resin post with Core-X flow. Fracture resistance was evaluated under compressive loading using a universal testing machine, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the failure patterns were assessed using a digital stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fracture resistance did not differ significantly among the three groups (p>0.05). Mean values were 430.28 N for Group A, 422.16 N for Group B, and 434.56 N for Group C. Failure mode analysis showed that Group C (5 mm all-resin posts) exhibited the highest number of favorable (repairable) fractures, followed by Group A (fiber posts) and Group B (10 mm all-resin posts).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>All-resin posts demonstrated fracture resistance comparable to fiber-reinforced posts. Shorter all-resin posts produced more favorable failure outcomes, suggesting that they may offer a conservative and clinically viable option for restoring endodontically treated teeth. These findings should be interpreted within the limitations of an in vitro design and small sample size.</p>","PeriodicalId":10445,"journal":{"name":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry","volume":"18 ","pages":"560921"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12970035/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical, Cosmetic and Investigational Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S560921","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2026/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study evaluated the fracture resistance of dual-cure resin cement and core build-up material (Core-X® Flow) used as all-resin posts of two different lengths, compared with conventional fiber-reinforced posts, and to analyze failure patterns.

Material and methods: Thirty extracted human single-rooted mature teeth (premolars, canines, and maxillary central incisors) were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to three groups (n=10). Group A received a 10 mm fiber post with Core-X Flow, Group B received a 10 mm all-resin post with Core-X flow, and Group C received a 5 mm all-resin post with Core-X flow. Fracture resistance was evaluated under compressive loading using a universal testing machine, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the failure patterns were assessed using a digital stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA (p>0.05).

Results: Fracture resistance did not differ significantly among the three groups (p>0.05). Mean values were 430.28 N for Group A, 422.16 N for Group B, and 434.56 N for Group C. Failure mode analysis showed that Group C (5 mm all-resin posts) exhibited the highest number of favorable (repairable) fractures, followed by Group A (fiber posts) and Group B (10 mm all-resin posts).

Conclusion: All-resin posts demonstrated fracture resistance comparable to fiber-reinforced posts. Shorter all-resin posts produced more favorable failure outcomes, suggesting that they may offer a conservative and clinically viable option for restoring endodontically treated teeth. These findings should be interpreted within the limitations of an in vitro design and small sample size.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

全树脂桩芯设计的抗断裂性和失效模式的比较评价:体外研究。
目的:本体外研究评估了双固化树脂水泥和核心构建材料(core - x®Flow)作为两种不同长度的全树脂桩的抗断裂性,并与传统的纤维增强桩进行了比较,并分析了失效模式。材料和方法:对30颗拔除的人单根成熟牙齿(前磨牙、犬牙和上颌中切牙)进行根管治疗,随机分为3组(n=10)。A组采用10 mm纤维桩,芯流为Core-X; B组采用10 mm全树脂桩,芯流为Core-X; C组采用5 mm全树脂桩,芯流为Core-X。在压缩载荷下,使用万能试验机以1 mm/min的十字速度评估其抗断裂能力,并使用数字立体显微镜评估其破坏模式。数据分析采用单因素方差分析(p < 0.05)。结果:三组间骨折抗力差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。A组的平均值为430.28 N, B组的平均值为422.16 N, C组的平均值为434.56 N。失效模式分析显示,C组(5mm全树脂桩)的有利(可修复)骨折数量最多,其次是A组(纤维桩)和B组(10 mm全树脂桩)。结论:全树脂桩具有与纤维增强桩相当的抗断裂性能。较短的全树脂桩产生了更有利的失败结果,这表明它们可能为修复根管治疗过的牙齿提供了一种保守和临床可行的选择。这些发现应该在体外设计和小样本量的限制下解释。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
43
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
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
小红书