International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Ribbond and Everstick Post in Reinforcing the Re-attached Maxillary Incisors Having Two Oblique Fracture Patterns: An In Vitro Study

Deeksha Khurana, Ashwini B Prasad, Deepak Raisingani, Harshit Srivastava, Prachi Mital, Namita Somani

Keywords : Everstick post, Fracture resistance, Re-attachment, Ribbond

Citation Information : Khurana D, Prasad AB, Raisingani D, Srivastava H, Mital P, Somani N. Comparison of Ribbond and Everstick Post in Reinforcing the Re-attached Maxillary Incisors Having Two Oblique Fracture Patterns: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (5):689-692.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2035

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-11-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim and objective: This study aims to compare the resistance to fracture in maxillary incisors which were fractured in two different oblique patterns and then were re-attached and reinforced using anatomic fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post. Materials and methods: Sixty extracted and intact human maxillary incisors were obtained and divided into two groups (A and B; n = 30). “Labiopalatal” and “palatolabial” fractures were induced in group A and group B, respectively. These two groups were further subdivided into two subgroups (n = 15). In subgroup I Ribbond fiber (Ribbond Inc., Seattle, WA, USA) and in subgroup II Everstick post (everStick Post™, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) were used. Fractured fragments were re-attached using resin and tested for fracture resistance in universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was done with ANOVA one-way test and post hoc test. Results: The labiopalatal fracture pattern of group A showed significantly increased resistance to fracture than the palatolabial fracture pattern of group B in both the subgroups. Similarly, subgroup II with Everstick post exhibited significantly higher fracture resistance than subgroup I with Ribbond in both groups A and B (p value < 0.05). Clinical significance: The study simulates a clinical scenario of coronal fracture of a tooth and focuses on the techniques and materials which can be used for successful management of such cases.

PDF Share
  1. Piskorowski JH. Traumatic intrusion of a tooth: a case report. Dent Today 2006;25(2):98–101.
  2. Vijayaprabha K, Marwah N, Dutta S. A biological approach to crown fracture: fracture reattachment: a report of two cases. Contemp Clin Dent 2012;3(Suppl 2):S194. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.101091.
  3. Pagliarini A, Rubini R, Rea M, et al. Crown fractures: effectiveness of current enamel-dentin adhesives in reattachment of fractured fragments. Quintessence Int 2000;31(2):133–136.
  4. Tonini R. An innovative method for fragment reattachment after complicated crown fracture. J Esthet Restor Dent 2017;29(3):172–177. DOI: 10.1111/jerd.12281.
  5. Chosack AB, Eidelman E. Rehabilitation of a fractured incisor using the patient's natural crown. Case Rep J Dent Child 1964;31(1):19–21.
  6. Taguchi CM, Bernardon JK, Zimmermann G, et al. Tooth fragment reattachment: a case report. Oper Dent 2015;40(3):227–234. DOI: 10.2341/14-034-T.
  7. Macedo GV, Diaz PI, de O Fernandes CA, et al. Reattachment of anterior teeth fragments: a conservative approach. J Esthet Restor Dent 2008;20(1):5–18. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2008.00142.x.
  8. Ramesh P, Mathew S, Murthy SB, et al. Efficacy of Ribbond and a fibre post on the fracture resistance of reattached maxillary central incisors with two fracture patterns: a comparative in vitro study. Dent Traumatol 2016;32(2):110–115. DOI: 10.1111/edt.12223.
  9. Sapna CM, Priya R, Sreedevi NB, et al. Reattachment of fractured tooth fragment with fiber post: a case series with 1-year followup. Case Rep Dent 2014;2014:376267. DOI: 10.1155/2014/376267.
  10. Ozcopur B, Akman S, Eskitascioglu G, et al. The effect of different posts on fracture strength of roots with vertical fracture and re-attached fragments. J Oral Rehabil 2010;37(8):615–623. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2010.02086.x.
  11. Tuloglu N, Bayrak S, Tunc ES. Different clinical applications of bondable reinforcement Ribbond in pediatric dentistry. Eur J Dent 2009;3(4):329. DOI: 10.1055/s-0039-1697453.
  12. Ribbond-Dental Fiber Reinforcement. [Company Brochure] [Internet]. Available at:
  13. Deepa VL, Reddy SN, Garapati VC, et al. Fracture fragment reattachment using projectors and anatomic everStick post™: an ultraconservative approach. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2017;7(Suppl 1):S52. DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_151_17.
  14. AEIGS Dental network [Internet]. Available at: https://www.aegisdental
  15. Karre D, Muppa R, Duddu MK, et al. Fracture resistance of reattached fragments using three different techniques with emphasis on vertical grooves and fiber-reinforced composite post: a novel technique. JCD 2017;20(6):474. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_144_17.
  16. Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM. Classification, etiology and epidemiology. In: Andreasen JO, Andreasen FM, ed. Textbook and color atlas of traumatic injuries to the teeth. 3rd ed., Munksgaard, Danmark: Copenhagen Publishers; 1994. pp. 151–177.
  17. Stokes AN, Hood JA. Impact fracture characteristics of intact and crowned human central incisors. J Oral Rehabil 1993;20(1):89–95. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1993.tb01518.x.
  18. Murchison DF, Burke FJ, Worthington RB. Incisal edge reattachment: indications for use and clinical technique. Br Dent J 1999;186(12):614–619. DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.4800178.
  19. Yilmaz Y, Zehir C, Eyuboglu O, et al. Evaluation of success in the reattachment of coronal fractures. Dent Traumatol 2008;24(2):151–158. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.2007.00532.x.
  20. Shirani F, Malekipour MR, Manesh VS, et al. Hydration and dehydration periods of crown fragments prior to reattachment. Oper Dent 2012;37(5):501–508. DOI: 10.2341/10-130-L.
  21. Machado J, Almeida P, Fernandes S, et al. Currently used systems of dental posts for endodontic treatment. Procedia Struct Integ 2017;5:27–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.prostr.2017.07.056.
  22. Torabi K, Fattahi F. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored by different FRC posts: an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20(3):282. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.57359.
  23. Misar P, Hiremath H, Jain P, et al. A biologic approach to crown fracture: fragment reattachment with ribbond for immediate esthetics: a case report. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2016;2:93–95.
  24. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(4):360–367. DOI: 10.1067/mpr.2003.75.
  25. Dean JA, Avery DR, Swartz ML. Attachment of anterior tooth fragments. Pediatr Dent 1986;8(3):139–143.
  26. Mangoush E, Säilynoja E, Prinssi R, et al. Comparative evaluation between glass and polyethylene fiber reinforced composites: a review of the current literature. J Clin Exp Dent 2017;9(12):e1408–e1417. DOI: 10.4317/jced.54205.
  27. Manjunath P, Sujatha I, Jayalakshmi KB. Comparison of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with two different fiber posts. Int J Appl Dent Sci 2017;3:197–201.
  28. Chakmakchi M, Rasheed R, Suliman R. In vitro comparative assessment of fracture resistance of roots restored with everstick fiber reinforced composite post. J Oral Dent Res 2015;2(1):43–50. DOI: 10.12816/0017635.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.