Jardim Jacqueline Salomão, Ferreira Vinicius de Menezes Félix, Fernandes E Oliveira Hiskell Francine, Faé Daniele Sorgatto, Lemos Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo
Program in Applied Health Sciences (PPGCAS), Federal University of Juiz de Fora/Campus GV (UFJF/GV), Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil.
Bone Research Lab, School of Dentistry of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.
J Dent. 2025 Aug;159:105739. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2025.105739. Epub 2025 Apr 9.
This systematic review aimed to evaluate whether the use of posts reduces failure rates in endodontically treated teeth compared to restorations without posts.
The systematic review followed the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions and adhered to the PRISMA checklist. The study was registered in the PROSPERO (CRD42021258906).
Electronic database searches were conducted in MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science up to October 2024, with supplementary searches in the grey literature (ProQuest and ClinicalTrials.gov). The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2.0 tool, and certainty of the evidence was performed using GRADE. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan 5.4 program, with the significance level set at P < .05.
The search identified 2352 articles, of which 23 articles were selected for full-text analysis, and 13 randomized clinical trials were included in the synthesis. Overall, restorations with posts showed significantly lower failure rates compared to those without posts (P = .001; Risk Ratio [RR]: 0.61). Subgroup analysis demonstrated favorable outcomes for post-use in indirect restorations (P < .001; RR: 0.44). whereas no significant differences were observed for direct restorations (P = .74; RR: 1.10). Further analysis revealed significant benefits only for prefabricated fiber posts (P < .001; RR: 0.54) and customizable fiberglass posts (P = .001; RR: 0.66). In contrast, cast post and core (P = .66; RR: 0.84) and prefabricated metallic posts (P = .67; RR: 1.19), showed no significant difference compared to restorations without posts. Five of the included studies had a low risk of bias, while seven were rated as having some concerns. The overall certainty of the evidence was classified as low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and imprecision.
Prefabricated or customized fiber posts effectively reduce failure risk in endodontically treated teeth in cases of indirect restorations. For direct restoration, the use of posts appears optional and should be determined based on case-specific factors. However, further well-designed randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings due to the low certainty of evidence.
Prefabricated or customized fiber posts are recommended for supporting coronal reconstruction in indirect restorations of endodontically treated teeth. In contrast, direct restorations allow for dental reconstruction without the use of intraradicular posts.
本系统评价旨在评估与未使用桩的修复体相比,使用桩是否能降低根管治疗后牙齿的失败率。
本系统评价遵循《Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册》并遵守PRISMA清单。该研究已在PROSPERO(CRD42021258906)注册。
截至2024年10月,在MEDLINE/PubMed、Embase、Scopus和Web of Science中进行了电子数据库检索,并在灰色文献(ProQuest和ClinicalTrials.gov)中进行了补充检索。使用RoB 2.0工具评估偏倚风险,使用GRADE评估证据的确定性。使用RevMan 5.4程序进行荟萃分析,显著性水平设定为P <.05。
检索到2352篇文章,其中23篇文章被选进行全文分析,13项随机临床试验纳入综合分析。总体而言,与未使用桩的修复体相比,使用桩的修复体失败率显著更低(P =.001;风险比[RR]:0.61)。亚组分析表明,在间接修复中使用桩有良好结果(P <.001;RR:0.44),而直接修复未观察到显著差异(P =.74;RR:1.10)。进一步分析显示,仅预制纤维桩(P <.001;RR:0.54)和可定制玻璃纤维桩(P =.001;RR:0.66)有显著益处。相比之下,铸造桩核(P =.66;RR:0.84)和预制金属桩(P =.67;RR:1.19)与未使用桩的修复体相比无显著差异。纳入的研究中有5项偏倚风险低,7项被评为有一些担忧。由于偏倚风险、间接性和不精确性,证据的总体确定性被归类为低。
在间接修复的情况下,预制或定制纤维桩可有效降低根管治疗后牙齿的失败风险。对于直接修复,使用桩似乎是可选的,应根据具体情况因素确定。然而,由于证据确定性低,需要进一步设计良好的随机临床试验来证实这些发现。
对于根管治疗后牙齿的间接修复,推荐使用预制或定制纤维桩来支持冠部重建。相比之下,直接修复允许在不使用根管内桩的情况下进行牙体重建。