International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Clinical Performance of Composite Resin Restorations of Primary Incisors with Extensive Carious Lesions Retained by Glass Fiber Post or Biological Post

Neha Jaiswal, Lumbini Pathivada

Keywords : Biological posts, Composite resin restorations, Glass fiber post

Citation Information : Jaiswal N, Pathivada L. Clinical Performance of Composite Resin Restorations of Primary Incisors with Extensive Carious Lesions Retained by Glass Fiber Post or Biological Post. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023; 16 (6):850-857.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2722

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-02-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: Intracanal posts enhance the resistance of the restoration to mechanical loads and masticatory forces in primary teeth with extensive carious breakdown. This study was done to investigate the clinical performance of composite resin restoration retained by either glass fiber post or biological post in the restoration of primary anterior teeth with extensive carious lesions. Materials and methods: A total of 21 children (with 82 primary anterior teeth) who met the inclusion criteria were involved in the study. The 82 primary maxillary incisors were randomly allocated into two equal groups: groups I (glass fiber post) and II (biological post). All the teeth underwent pulpectomy, followed by glass fiber post or biological post, followed by celluloid strip crown restoration. Clinical analysis of all the teeth in the two groups was performed at 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months to assess the success of treatment procedures. Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software version “17” was used for statistical analysis. Pearson's Chi-squared test and Fisher's exact test were utilized to evaluate the success of both treatment procedures. The significance level was predetermined at p < 0.05. Results: At the end of the 12-month follow-up period, 89.4 and 84.2% of composite resin restorations of primary incisors with extensive carious lesions were retained by glass fiber and biological posts, respectively. The intergroup comparison revealed no statistically significant differences pertaining to retention loss, marginal discoloration, and marginal adaptation at all follow-up intervals (p > 0.05). Conclusion and clinical significance: Since biological posts are inexpensive and economical, they may replace the commercial post systems available to pediatric dentists.

  1. Ripa LW. Nursing caries: a comprehensive review. Pediatr Dent 1988;10(4):268–282.
  2. Ngan P, Fields H. Orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning in the primary dentition. ASDC J Dent Child 1995;62(1):25–33.
  3. Metha D, Gulati A, Basappa N, et al. Esthetic rehabilitation of severely decayed primary incisors using glass fiber reinforced composite: a case report. J Dent Child 2012;79(1):22–25.
  4. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107(5):e60–e64. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.051
  5. Kennedy DB. The class 4 lesions. In: Kennedy DB. Pediatric Operative Dentistry. 3rd ed. Bristol: Wright 1986;102–105.
  6. Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Bamba S. The composite resin short-post: a review of 625 teeth. Ont Dent 1986;63(5):12–18.
  7. Judd PL, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, et al. Composite resin short-post technique for primary anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120(5):553–555. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0071
  8. Pithan S, Vieira Rde S, Chain MC. Tensile bond strength of intracanal posts in primary anterior teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002; 27(1):35–39.
  9. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, et al. Resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int 2004;35(9):689–692.
  10. Pinheiro SL, Bonecker MJ, Duarte DA, et al. Bond strength analysis of intracanal posts used in anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006;31(1):32–34.
  11. Ferreira MC, Kummer TR, Vieira RS, et al. Short resin-posts bonding to primary dentin. Microleakage and micro-morphological in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2007;31(3):202–206. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.31.3.4r3k450476553211
  12. Grewal N, Seth R. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2008;26(4):141–148. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.44028
  13. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28(3):187–192. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.3.2554xv412644ru13
  14. Usha M, Deepak V, Venkat S, et al. Treatment of severely mutilated incisors: a challenge to the pedodontist. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2007;25(Suppl):S34–S36.
  15. Aminabadi NA, Farahani RM. The efficacy of a modified omega wire extension for the treatment of severely damaged primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;33(4):283–288. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.33.4.p8m168x8784719h3
  16. Navit S, Katiyar A, Samadi F, et al. Rehabilitation of severely mutilated teeth under general anesthesia in an emotionally immature child. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2010;28(1):42–44. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.60476
  17. Cavalcanti AL, Barbosa JC, Boudoux KL, et al. Bonded intracanal post in restoration of anterior deciduous teeth. J Bras Odontopediatr Odontol Bebê 2003;6(30):152–156.
  18. Wanderley MT, Ferreira SL, Rodrigues CR, et al. Primary anterior tooth restoration using posts with macroretentive elements. Quintessence Int 1999;30(6):432–436.
  19. Ramires-Romito AC, Wanderley MT, Oliveira MD, et al. Biologic restoration of primary anterior teeth. Quintessence Int 2000;31(6):405–411.
  20. Mandroli PS. Biologic restoration of primary anterior teeth: a case report. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2003;21(3):95–97.
  21. Kapur A, Chawla HS, Goyal A, et al. An esthetic point of view in very young children. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;30(2):99–103.
  22. Sharaf AA. The application of fiber core posts in restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;26(3):217–224. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.26.3.y3660x50n5l0jv0p
  23. Island G, White GE. Polyethylene ribbon fibers: a new alternative for restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29(2):151–156.
  24. Motisuki C, Santos-Pinto L, Giro EM. Restoration of severely decayed primary incisors using indirect composite resin restoration technique. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15(4):282–286. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00645.x
  25. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Sunny R. Glass fiber reinforced composite resin as an intracanal post–a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32(3):207–210. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.32.3.700t77h520473149
  26. Oliveira LB, Peixoto LFS, Conte Zardetto CG, et al. Rehabilitation of primary anterior teeth using glass fiber core post. J Health Sci Inst 2010;28:89–93.
  27. Gujjar KR, Indushekar KR. Comparison of the retentive strength of 3 different posts in restoring badly broken primary maxillary incisors. J Dent Child (Chic) 2010;77(1):17–24.
  28. Verma K, Verma P, Goyal T. Recreation with biological restoration: a root canal reconstruction. J Health Spec 2014;2(1):31–33.
  29. Kathuria A, Kavitha M, Khetarpal S. Ex vivo fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors restored with fiber-reinforced composite posts and experimental dentin posts. J Conserv Dent 2011;14(4):401–405. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.87211
  30. Cvar JF, Ryge G. Reprint of criteria for the clinical evaluation of dental restorative materials. Clin Oral Invest 2005;9(4):7–24. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-005-0018-z
  31. Viera CL, Ribeiro CC. Polyethylene fiber tape used as a post and core in decayed primary anterior teeth: a treatment option. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2001;26(1):1–4.
  32. Freilich MA, Meiers JC. Fiber-reinforced composite prostheses. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(2):545–562. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2004.01.005
  33. Mittal N, Bhatia HP, Haider K. Methods of intracanal reinforcement in primary anterior teeth—assessing the outcomes through a systematic literature review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2015;8(1):48–54. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1282
  34. Loguercio AD, Raffo J, Bassani F, et al. 24-month clinical evaluation in non-carious cervical lesions of a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive applied using a rubbing motion. Clin Oral Investig 2011;15(4):589–596. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-010-0408-8
  35. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med 2005;37(5):360–363.
  36. Eshghi A, Kowsari-Isfahan R, Khoroushi M. Evaluation of three restorative techniques for primary anterior teeth with extensive carious lesions: a 1-year clinical study. J Dent Child 2013;80(2):80–87.
  37. Vafaei A, Ranjkesh B, Løvschall H, et al. Survival of composite resin restorations of severely decayed primary anterior teeth retained by glass fiber posts or reversed-orientated metal posts. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(2):109–113. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1344
  38. Mehra M, Grover R, Pandit IK, et al. Management of grossly decayed primary anteriors using various intracanal post systems: a clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2016;34(3):199–203. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.186749
  39. Correa-Faria P, Alcantara CE, Caldas-Diniz MV, et al. “Biological restoration”: root canal and coronal reconstruction. J Esthet Restor Dent 2010;22(3):168–177. DOI: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00331.x
  40. Belli S, Eraslan O, Eskitascioglu G, et al. Monoblocks in root canals: a finite elemental stress analysis study. Int Endod J 2011;44(9):817–826. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01885.x
  41. Nalla RK, Kinney JH, Ritchie RO. Effect of orientation on the in vitro fracture toughness of dentin: The role of toughening mechanisms. Biomaterials 2003;24(22):3955–3968. DOI: 10.1016/s0142-9612(03)00278-3
  42. Jantarat J, Palamara JE, Lindner C, et al. Time-dependent properties of human root dentin. Dent Mater 2002;18(6):486–493. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(01)00074-4
  43. 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
  44. Kurthukoti AJ, Paul J, Gandhi K, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated permanent anterior teeth restored with three different esthetic post systems: an in vitro study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2015;33(4):296–301. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.165675
  45. Ambica K, Mahendran K, Talwar S, et al. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance under static and fatigue loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with carbon fiber posts, glass fiber posts, and an experimental dentin post system: an in vitro study. J Endod 2013;39(1):96–100. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.07.003
  46. Kumar BS, Kumar S, Mohan Kumar NS, et al. Biological post. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7(2):S721–S724. DOI: 10.4103/0975-7406.163500
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.