Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ahram Canadian University, Egypt.
Department of Primary Care, Alahmadi Dental Administration, Ministry of Health, Kuwait.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Jan 1;25(1):72-78. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3629.
In comparing the effectiveness and efficiency of different types of post removal systems in removing different types of fiber posts (FPs), this study aims to shed light on the success of removal by currently available drill systems.
A total of 200 maxillary first molars, were root canal treated and prepared to receive posts. The molars were divided into four groups corresponding to four different FPs: Group RX, Radix FP; Group RF, Reforpost Glass Fiber; Group HI; Hi-Rem Endodontic Post; and Group DT, D.T. Light-Post Illusion X-RO. Fiber posts were done with luting by Gradia Core (GC America, Inc.). Groups were again divided into five subgroups corresponding to the technique by which the FP was removed into as follows: Subgroup P, PD-25-1.1 Drill; subgroup G, GC FP Drill; subgroup E, EasyPost Precision Drill; subgroup R, Reaccess Carbide Double Taper Kit; and subgroup H; H-Endodontic Drill. After posts were removed, effectiveness and efficiency were documented. Data were tabulated and statistically analyzed.
Strong significant differences regarding efficiency among groups (FP type) and subgroups (drills used) ( = 0.00) were shown by the one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test. Subgroup DT-G scored the longest mean removal time (20.9 minutes) while Subgroup RX-R scored the shortest mean removal time (1.4 minutes) Regarding effectiveness, strong significant differences among groups ( = 0.00) and subgroups ( = 0.00) were shown by one-way ANOVA. Subgroup RF-G scored the highest scale (5.2) whereas subgroup HI-R scored the lowest mean scale (1.2).
The difference was strongly significant between tested post-removal kits and between tested FPs. Re-access Carbide Double Taper Kit performed superiorly in both effectiveness and efficiency, followed by PD-25-1.1 Drill. Hi-Rem post showed the best retrieving results among other FPs.
Knowing the best technique and tools for post removal could spare the practitioner any unwanted complications during post removal. How to cite this article: Sayed M, Alahmad AM, Alhajji KS, . Removal Efficiency and Effectiveness of Four Different Fiber Posts Using Five Different Drill Systems in Multirooted Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(1):72-78.
在比较不同类型的后牙根管桩取出系统（post removal systems）去除不同类型纤维桩（fiber posts，FPs）的效果和效率时，本研究旨在阐明目前可用的钻头系统在去除方面的成功率。
本研究共纳入 200 颗上颌第一磨牙，这些磨牙均经过根管治疗并预备以接收根管桩。这些磨牙被分为四组，对应四种不同的 FP：组 RX，Radix FP；组 RF，Reforpost Glass Fiber；组 HI，Hi-Rem Endodontic Post；和组 DT，D.T. Light-Post Illusion X-RO。纤维桩使用 Gradia Core（GC America，Inc.）进行黏固。各组再次分为五个亚组，对应于以下不同的 FP 去除技术：亚组 P，PD-25-1.1 钻头；亚组 G，GC FP 钻头；亚组 E，EasyPost Precision 钻头；亚组 R，Reaccess Carbide Double Taper Kit；和亚组 H，H-Endodontic Drill。去除根管桩后，记录效果和效率。数据制表并进行统计学分析。
单向方差分析（one-way ANOVA）检验显示，各组（FP 类型）和亚组（使用的钻头）之间的效率存在显著差异（=0.00）。亚组 DT-G 的平均去除时间最长（20.9 分钟），而亚组 RX-R 的平均去除时间最短（1.4 分钟）。关于效果，各组（=0.00）和亚组（=0.00）之间的差异具有统计学意义。亚组 RF-G 的评分最高（5.2），而亚组 HI-R 的评分最低（1.2）。
测试的后牙根管桩取出套件和测试的 FPs 之间存在显著差异。Re-access Carbide Double Taper Kit 在效果和效率方面表现出色，其次是 PD-25-1.1 钻头。Hi-Rem 桩在其他 FP 中表现出最好的取出效果。
了解最佳的根管桩取出技术和工具可以使医生在根管桩取出过程中避免任何不必要的并发症。如何引用本文：Sayed M, Alahmad AM, Alhajji KS,. Removal Efficiency and Effectiveness of Four Different Fiber Posts Using Five Different Drill Systems in Multirooted Teeth. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(1):72-78.
