Clinical and laboratorial performance of rehabilitation of endodontically treated teeth: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThis systematic review aimed to analyze the clinical (survival rate, failure risk, or fracture) and laboratory performance (fracture mode or failure) of rehabilitations of endodontically treated teeth, with and without posts.Materials and MethodsA systematic search was conducted in the Pubmed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Library, and OpenGrey databases up to March 2023, according to PRISMA guidelines. In vitro and clinical studies that compared the clinical and laboratory performance of endodontically treated teeth with and without intraradicular posts were included. Studies selection, data extraction, and risk of bias analysis were performed.ResultsThirty‐one in vitro and 7 clinical studies were included. For in vitro studies, fiberglass post (n = 24) was the most mentioned. The follow‐up time of the clinical studies ranged from 1 to 17 years, with the fiber‐reinforced composite post (n = 3) being the most evaluated, and only failure risk proved to be more favorable for using intraradicular posts.ConclusionRehabilitations of endodontically treated teeth with and without intraradicular retainers showed no difference in fracture resistance and failure mode, evaluated by in vitro studies. Clinical studies showed no difference in survival rate, but failure risk proved to be more favorable for the use of posts.Clinical SignificanceThis analysis revealed significant variability between results, however, most laboratory and clinical studies revealed no difference with using the post. Furthermore, it is important to emphasize the need to evaluate the coronary remnant and the general characteristics of the tooth in each situation.