Carbon vs polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite posts: 3-year results

Objectives: The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of 2 post systems. Methods: Forty (40) patients 18 years or older needing post & cores were included in this study restoring 50 premolar teeth. Half the patients received prefabricated carbon fiber-reinforced posts (c-FRP), and the other half received custom-made polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite posts (p-FRC). The posts were assigned randomly. Inclusion criteria: teeth having a ferrule of at least 1.5 mm in height; teeth in occlusion function with a natural tooth and having proximal contact with the adjacent teeth; teeth having homogeneous root fillings terminating 0-2 mm from the radiographic apex. Teeth with more than two coronal walls preserved or with mobility greater than degree 2 were excluded. In both groups, root canal hybridization was performed using UltraEtch 35% phosphoric acid and PQ1 adhesive system (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT). The prefabricated c-FRP (EndoComposipost, RTD, St. Egreve, France) was tried-in and shortened with a diamond bur. In the p-FRC group, a polyethylene ribbon fiber (Ribbond Triaxial, Seattle, WA) was wetted with unfilled resin (Permaseal, Ultradent), placed into a canal, folded and light cured. Post cementation and core build-up were completed using Perma-Flo DC resin cement in either groups. All teeth were covered with a single-unit PFM crown. Results: All but two restorations were evaluated after a 3-y period by two independent evaluators pre-calibrated at 85% reliability. Two post debonding failure occurred during temporary crown removal and one at the 30-month in the c-FRP; an endodontic failure occurred in the p-FRC. The log-rank test showed no statistical significant difference in the survival of the two post & core systems (p>0.5). Conclusion: c-FRP restorations resulted in 12% post debonding; conversely, no post debonding occurred in the p-FRC group.