Odontologia

journal of dentistry 35 (2007) 50–58

available at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Survival time of cast post and cores: A 10-year
retrospective study
Markus Balkenhol a,*, Bernd Wostmann a, Christian Rein b, Paul Ferger a
¨
a
b

Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Justus-Liebig-University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, GermanyPrivate Practice, Struthweg 18, 35708 Haiger-Allendorf, Germany

article info

abstract

Article history:

Objectives: The aim of this retrospective, longitudinal study was to examine the survival

Received 6 March 2006

time of custom-fabricated, cast post and cores and to evaluate, which covariates influence

Accepted 11 April 2006

the risk of failures over a period of up to 10years based on a large patient collective.
Methods: The files of 565 patients, who had been fitted with a total of 802 customfabricated, cast post and cores using a standardised technique, were analysed. The follow-

Keywords:

ing parameters were used in the evaluation: age of the post and cores, fabrication technique

Post and core

(direct, indirect), type of prosthetic restoration,location (upper, lower jaw), type of tooth

Survival time

(anterior, premolar, molar), number of root posts, luting material, post and core alloy and

Cox regression

cause of failure. The survival probability was assessed using Kaplan–Meyer analysis. Cox

Kaplan–Meyer analysis

regression was used to assess the risk of failure and identify possible covariates.

Telescopic crown retainedRPDs

Results: The average survival time of the post and cores was 7.3 years. The cumulative

Crowns

failure rate was 11.2%. The most common complication was loss of retention of the post and

Bridges

cores. High-gold-content posts had a lower risk of failure than posts made from semi-

Clinical study

precious alloy. The type of restoration fitted had a significant influence on thesurvival

Longitudinal study

probability.

Retrospective study

Conclusions: Post and cores custom-fabricated using a standardised fabrication technique
have a good long-term prognosis. The most common cause of failure is loss of retention. The
durability of posts with low friction at the try-in stage cannot be compensated for by using
glass ionomer cement as the luting material.
#2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1.

Introduction

Prosthetic restoration of a root-filled tooth frequently requires
preprosthetic treatment of the remaining tooth structure prior
to fitting the permanent restoration. The reason for this is, that
in general a root-filled tooth will already have considerable
coronal hard-tissue defects before root filling 1 and the tooth
structure isfurther reduced by the actual root canal treatment
(preparation of access cavity, exposing the canals, preparing
the canals).2 The preprosthetic treatment of a root-filled tooth
consists primarily of rebuilding lost tooth structure using an

alloplastic material to provide a preparation with adequate
frictional surfaces for retaining a crown or bridge. 1,3–6 If the
remaining tooth structureis inadequate for permanent
retention of a direct core build-up material, a root post must
be used for retaining the core.7–9 For this purpose, a
prefabricated root post or an indirect, custom-fabricated post
and core can be used. Custom-fabricated, cast post and cores
are still regarded as the established technique or gold standard
for restoring extensively damaged teeth.1,10–12 In the basicevaluation of the therapeutic value of post and core treatment,
survival time is an important parameter.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +49 641 9946 144; fax: +49 641 9946 139.
E-mail address: markus.balkenhol@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de (M. Balkenhol).
0300-5712/$ – see front matter # 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2006.04.004

51

journal of dentistry...