Premium
A survey of Australian prosthodontists: the use of posts in endodontically treated teeth
Author(s) -
Sambrook R,
Burrow M
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
australian dental journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.701
H-Index - 71
eISSN - 1834-7819
pISSN - 0045-0421
DOI - 10.1111/adj.12620
Subject(s) - prosthodontist , dentistry , context (archaeology) , medicine , seal (emblem) , prosthodontics , post and core , orthodontics , geography , archaeology , crown (dentistry)
Background This study aimed to gain insight into common practises of Australian prosthodontists when placing a post in an endodontically treated tooth (ETT). Methods A 17‐question open‐ and closed‐format questionnaire was sent to registered Australian prosthodontists. The response rate was 55% (N = 95). Results The majority of respondents indicated the purpose of a post was to retain a core (N = 94, 99%). The decision to place a post is affected by the quantity of remaining tooth structure (N = 91, 96%) and the definitive restoration (N = 68, 72%). The ideal post length is neither a short nor long post with the most frequent response (N = 52, 34%) being ‘as long as possible without disturbing the apical seal’. The apical seal requirements were defined as 4–5 mm of gutta‐percha for 77% of respondents. The most preferred post type was a custom cast metal post (N = 85, 49%). The most popular luting cement was resin composite (N = 84, 39%). Conclusions The results from this survey do not provide a definitive guide for restoring an ETT. However, it illustrates how Australian prosthodontists address this clinical challenge. The multiple responses received for a number of questions suggest that the material and technique employed in the Australian context is influenced by the individual clinical case.