PURPOSE

To assess the fracture strength of cavity preparations, directly restored with resin composite, with and without the presence of fiberglass posts with different diameters.

METHODS

84 extracted third molars were embedded in acrylic resin and divided into six groups (n = 14 per group): healthy (H); cavity preparation (P); cavity preparation + endodontic treatment (PE); PE + resin composite (R); PE + R + 2 horizontally transfixed fiberglass posts 1.1 mm in diameter (PERP1); PE + R + 2 fiberglass posts 1.5 mm in diameter (PERP2). The MOD cavity preparations were standardized with their width corresponding to 2/3 of the buccolingual distance and occlusogingival depth of 4 mm, with 2 mm remaining above the cemento-enamel junction. Endodontic treatments were performed in the PE, R, PERP1 and PERP2 groups. The buccal surface received two demarcations to create orifices for placement of the PERP1 and PERP2 posts. Once the fiberglass posts were placed, the teeth were restored with resin composite. In group R, only resin composite was used. After 24 hours, the teeth were subjected to the fracture toughness test on a universal testing machine. A 10 KN load cell and crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute was used until fracture occurred. After testing, the teeth were inspected for the type of fracture classified as: pulpal floor fracture (AP) or cuspal fracture (CP).

RESULTS

The data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's test (P < 0.05%), demonstrating a statistical difference between groups: H 3830NA; P 778ND; PE 572.93ND; R 1782NC; PERP1 2988NB; PERP2 3100NAB. The fracture pattern was similar between the tested groups, showing 50% of fracture for cusps and pulpal floor.