Comparison of Two Techniques for Removing Fiber Posts

By Gesi A, Magnolfi S, Goracci C, and Ferrari M

Date: 08/2004
Journal: JOE


•Purpose:  to evaluate the time needed to remove three types of fiber posts with two different bur kits.


•N=  60 extracted anterior teeth

•Root canals were instrumented using the crown-down technique with Profiles (#40 .06)

•Vertical condensation of gutta-percha, using the system B, back-filling was completed with the obtura syringe

•Access cavity was sealed with a noneugenol temporary filling

•After 2 days in water, temporary filling was removed, post space to a depth of 10 mm

. •The sample was randomly divided into 3 groups (n=20) each. 3 different types of posts: group 1, conic 6% tapered fiber posts; group 2, FRC poster fiber posts; and group 3, composipost carbon fiber posts (RTD).

•After 2 days in water, half of the specimens from each group (subgroup a), the RTD fiber post removal kit was used. First, with a very short working portion, prepares a hole on the surface of fiber post; second, following this opening, drills through the fiber post.

•The other half of each group (subgroup B), fiber posts were removed by an opening created on the head of the fiber post with the tip of a diamond bur, then, a #3 Largo bur was used to penetrate the post

• Most highlighted Results:

1.On average the least time was needed to remove composiposts (group 3), and difference was statistically significant

2.Procedure using a diamond and a largo bur (subgroup B) was less time consuming, difference was statistically significant

3.There was no significant interaction between type of post and type of bur as far as removal time is concerned

4.Regardless of the type of post inserted, time for post removal was always longer when the RTD kit was used.

Clinical significance:    

From a clinical standpoint, the time on average needed to remove a fiber post seemed, regardless of its type and the bur kit used, satisfactorily short.