Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Why, when, and how general practitioners restore endodontically treated teeth: a representative survey in Germany

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to assess current opinions, applied techniques, and materials for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) in a nationwide survey in Germany.

Material and methods

Completed questionnaires from 1,648 dentists were returned (response rate 63 %).

Results

In general, posts were reported to be used more frequently (51 %) for indirect restorations than for direct restorations (21 %). Dentists restored anterior teeth (65 %) more frequently with direct restorations than posterior teeth (48 %). Compared to an earlier survey, fewer dentists stated that posttreatment stabilizes the remaining tooth structure. The ferrule effect as a key success factor was held by the vast majority of dentists (88 %). A trend towards adhesive techniques both for post placement and core build-up was observed. Composite resins (49 %) were reported to be used twice as much as zinc phosphate cement (24 %) for the luting of posts; composite resins were the core build-up material of choice (75 %). Amalgam was rarely used (0.2 %). Irrespective of the final restoration, fiber posts were the most popular post material (46 % for telescopic crowns vs. 69 % for single crowns).

Conclusion

Adhesive composite core build-ups with and without fiber posts were the predominant treatment approach to restore ETT in Germany. There was widespread agreement with the ferrule effect as a key restorative success factor for indirect restorations.

Clinical significance

Today, it is general accepted that ferrule preparation is key. Glass-fiber posts appear to be most popular. Still different systems are used depending on type of final restoration, while the reasons to do so remain unclear.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sterzenbach G, Franke A, Naumann M (2012) Rigid versus flexible dentine-like endodontic posts-clinical testing of a biomechanical concept: seven-year results of a randomized controlled clinical pilot trial on endodontically treated abutment teeth with severe hard tissue loss. J Endod 38:1557–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Stankiewicz NR, Wilson PR (2002) The ferrule effect: a literature review. Int Endod J 35:575–81

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Howe CA, McKendry DJ (1990) Effect of endodontic access preparation on resistance to crown-root fracture. J Am Dent Assoc 121:712–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Panitvisai P, Messer HH (1995) Cuspal deflection in molars in relation to endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod 21:57–61

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fernandes AS, Dessai GS (2001) Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodontics 14:355–63

    Google Scholar 

  6. Nagasiri R, Chitmongkolsuk S (2005) Long-term survival of endodontically treated molars without crown coverage: a retrospective cohort study. J Prosthet Dent 93:164–70

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. D’Arcangelo C, Prosperi GD, Passariello P, Caputi S, Malagnino VA (2005) Capacity of coronal dentin to increase fiberglass post retention: a pull-out test. Am J Dent 18:307–10

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Pereira JR, Mendonca Neto T, Porto Vde C, Pegoraro LF, Valle AL (2005) Influence of the remaining coronal structure on the resistance of teeth with intraradicular retainer. Braz Dent J 16:197–201

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Naumann M, Koelpin M, Beuer F, Meyer-Lueckel H (2012) 10-year survival evaluation for glass-fiber-supported postendodontic restoration: a prospective observational clinical study. J Endod 38:432–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Caplan DJ, Kolker J, Rivera EM, Walton RE (2002) Relationship between number of proximal contacts and survival of root canal treated teeth. Int Endod J 35:193–199

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Kiessling S, Dietrich T (2005) Risk factors for failure of glass fiber-reinforced composite post restorations: a prospective observational clinical study. Eur J Oral Sci 113:519–24

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bergman B, Lundquist P, Sjogren U, Sundquist G (1989) Restorative and endodontic results after treatment with cast posts and cores. J Prosthet Dent 61:10–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Hatzikyriakos AH, Reisis GI, Tsingos N (1992) A 3-year postoperative clinical evaluation of posts and cores beneath existing crowns. J Prosthet Dent 67:454–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT (1984) Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 52:28–35

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Eckerbom M, Magnusson T, Martinsson T (1991) Prevalence of apical periodontitis, crowned teeth and teeth with posts in a Swedish population. Endod Dent Traumatol 7:214–20

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferrari M, Mason PN, Goracci C, Pashley DH, Tay FR (2004) Collagen degradation in endodontically treated teeth after clinical function. J Dent Res 83:414–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Gutmann JL (1992) The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 67:458–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Li LL, Wang ZY, Bai ZC, Mao Y, Gao B, Xin HT, Zhou B, Zhang Y, Liu B (2006) Three-dimensional finite element analysis of weakened roots restored with different cements in combination with titanium alloy posts. Chin Med J (Engl) 119:305–11

    Google Scholar 

  19. Assif D, Oren E, Marshak BL, Aviv I (1989) Photoelastic analysis of stress transfer by endodontically treated teeth to the supporting structure using different restorative techniques. J Prosthet Dent 61:535–43

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Saupe WA, Gluskin AH, Radke RA Jr (1996) A comparative study of fracture resistance between morphologic dowel and cores and a resin-reinforced dowel system in the intraradicular restoration of structurally compromised roots. Quintessence Int 27:483–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Aquilino SA, Caplan DJ (2002) Relationship between crown placement and the survival of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 87:256–63

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Mannocci F, Bertelli E, Sherriff M, Watson TF, Ford TR (2002) Three-year clinical comparison of survival of endodontically treated teeth restored with either full cast coverage or with direct composite restoration. J Prosthet Dent 88:297–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Decock V, De Nayer K, De Boever JA, Dent M (1996) 18-year longitudinal study of cantilevered fixed restorations. Int JProsthodontics 9:331–40

    Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW (2004) Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 30:289–301

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Assif D, Gorfil C (1994) Biomechanical considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 71:565–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Lambjerg-Hansen H, Asmussen E (1997) Mechanical properties of endodontic posts. J Oral Rehabil 24:882–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Johnson ME, Stewart GP, Nielsen CJ, Hatton JF (2000) Evaluation of root reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 90:360–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Cohen S, Blanco L, Berman L (2003) Vertical root fractures: clinical and radiographic diagnosis. J Am Dent Assoc 134:434–41

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Fuss Z, Lustig J, Katz A, Tamse A (2001) An evaluation of endodontically treated vertical root fractured teeth: impact of operative procedures. J Endod 27:46–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Morfis AS (1990) Vertical root fractures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 69:631–5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nair MK, Nair UDP, Grondahl HG, Webber RL, Wallace JA (2001) Detection of artificially induced vertical radicular fractures using tuned aperture computed tomography. Eur J Oral Sci 109:375–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Seow LL, Toh CG, Wilson NH (2003) A survey of current practices among general dental practitioners in Manchester in 2002. Prim Dent Care 10:87–92

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Brunton PA, Christensen GJ, Cheung SW, Burke FJ, Wilson NH (2005) Contemporary dental practice in the UK: indirect restorations and fixed prosthodontics. Br Dent J 198:99–103, discussion 89

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Hussey DL, Killough SA (1995) A survey of general dental practitioners’ approach to the restoration of root-filled teeth. Int Endod J 28:91–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Eckerbom M, Magnusson T (2001) Restoring endodontically treated teeth: a survey of current opinions among board-certified prosthodontists and general dental practitioners in Sweden. Int J Prosthodontics 14:245–9

    Google Scholar 

  36. Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM (1999) An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent 81:262–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Farrell TH, Burke FJ (1989) Root canal treatment in the General Dental Service 1948–1987. Br Dent J 166:203–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Allen EP, Bayne SC, Cronin RJ Jr, Donovan TE, Kois JC, Summitt JB (2004) Annual review of selected dental literature: Report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry. J Prosthet Dent 92:39–71

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Scurria MS, Shugars DA, Hayden WJ, Felton DA (1995) General dentists’ patterns of restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 126:775–9

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Morgano SM, Hashem AF, Fotoohi K, Rose L (1994) A nationwide survey of contemporary philosophies and techniques of restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 72:259–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Slaus G, Bottenberg P (2002) A survey of endodontic practice amongst Flemish dentists. Int Endod J 35:759–67

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Trautmann G, Gutmann JL, Nunn ME, Witherspoon DE, Shulman JD (2000) Restoring teeth that are endodontically treated through existing crowns. Part II: survey of restorative materials commonly used. Quintessence Int 31:719–28

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Seemann R, Pfefferkorn F, Hickel R (2011) Behaviour of general dental practitioners in Germany regarding posterior restorations with flowable composites. Int Dent J 61:252–6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Naumann M, Kiessling S, Seemann R (2006) Treatment concepts for restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a nationwide survey of dentists in Germany. J Prosthet Dent 96:332–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ (1990) Ferrule design and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 63:529–36

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Isidor F, Brondum K, Ravnholt G (1999) The influence of post length and crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic loading of bovine teeth with prefabricated titanium posts. Int J Prosthodontics 12:78–82

    Google Scholar 

  47. Zhi-Yue L, Yu-Xing Z (2003) Effects of post-core design and ferrule on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors. J Prosthet Dent 89:368–73

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Pierrisnard L, Bohin F, Renault P, Barquins M (2002) Corono-radicular reconstruction of pulpless teeth: a mechanical study using finite element analysis. J Prosthet Dent 88:442–8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT (1984) Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 51:780–4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI (1979) In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 42:39–44

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Turp JC, Heydecke G, Krastl G, Pontius O, Antes G, Zitzmann NU (2007) Restoring the fractured root-canal-treated maxillary lateral incisor: in search of an evidence-based approach. Quintessence Int 38:179–91

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Gateau P, Sabek M, Dailey B (1999) Fatigue testing and microscopic evaluation of post and core restorations under artificial crowns. J Prosthet Dent 82:341–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Ziebert AJ, Dhuru VB (1995) The fracture toughness of various core materials. J Prosthodont 4:33–7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Kovarik RE, Breeding LC, Caughman WF (1992) Fatigue life of three core materials under simulated chewing conditions. J Prosthet Dent 68:584–90

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The present study has been sponsored in part by DENTSPLY DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany. Rainer Seemann is an employee of DENTSPLY DeTrey.

Conflict of interest

The authors deny any conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Clinic for Prosthetic Dentistry, Department of Dentistry, University Clinic Ulm, Ulm, Germany

    Michael Naumann

  2. Department of Preventive, Restorative and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

    Klaus W. Neuhaus & Rainer Seemann

  3. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Charité University Clinic CC03 Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Manja Kölpin

  4. DENTSPLY DETREY, Konstanz, Germany

    Rainer Seemann

  5. Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Center of Dentistry, University of Ulm, Albert-Einstein-Allee 11, 89081, Ulm, Germany

    Michael Naumann

Authors
  1. Michael Naumann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Klaus W. Neuhaus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Manja Kölpin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Rainer Seemann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael Naumann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Naumann, M., Neuhaus, K.W., Kölpin, M. et al. Why, when, and how general practitioners restore endodontically treated teeth: a representative survey in Germany. Clin Oral Invest 20, 253–259 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1505-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-015-1505-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation