Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2000 27; 483–487
Effect of prefabricated metal post-head design on the
retention of various core materials
M. ZALKIND*, S. SHKURY*, N. STERN* & I. HELING†
Endodontics, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Dental Medicine, Jerusalem, Israel
SUMMARY Retention of various post heads to core
restorative materials is an important factor in the
selection of prefabricated post systems and restora-
tive materials for the restoration of endodontically
treated teeth. This study examines the retention of
a post–core prefabricated system in relation to core
material and post-head design. A total of 60 sam-
ples were prepared using two different post sys-
tems (ParaPost Plus® (PP) and ParaPost Unity®
(PU), with amalgam, composite or glass–ionomer as
one of the core materials. The samples were tested
Introduction
Restoration of endontically treated teeth with post and
core units is a commonly used procedure in dentistry.
The post is inserted in the root canal and the core is
retained and supported by its coronal extension. This,
in turn, retains and supports the final restoration, sim-
ulating prepared tooth structure (Baraban, 1967; Perel
& Muroff, 1972; Trabert & Cooney, 1984; Sokol 1984;
Assif & Gorfil, 1994; Morgan, 1996).
While custom-cast tapered posts and cores are tradi-
tionally used to restore endontically treated teeth, pre-
fabricated posts have become very popular (Torbjorner,
Karlsson & Odman, 1995). Over the years, various
prefabricated post systems have been introduced and
successfully used in clinical settings (Greenfeld et al.,
1989; Cohen et al., 1995).
Many methods and techniques for post-and-core
construction are available. The characteristics of each
system are determined by the post-and-core design
(Greenfeld et al., 1989; Kahn, 1991; Cohen et al.,
1995). Post heads are either flat, spherical, or serrated,
© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd
*Department of Prosthodontics and †Department of
using the Instron testing machine. The PP was su-
perior to the PU prefabricated post with respect to
the retention of various core materials. Retention
values in descending order of magnitude were
found to be: composite, amalgam and glass–
ionomer (significantly lower). The rhomboid ser-
rated design of PP was superior in retention to the
rounded smooth UP system. Composite material
proved to be superior in retention, closely followed
by amalgam, with glass – ionomer significantly less
retentive.
and the most commonly used core materials are silver
amalgam, composite and glass–ionomer cement (Vol-
wiler, Nicols & Harrington, 1989; Chang & Millstein,
1993; Kahn et al., 1996). The advantages of glass–
ionomer cement as a core material include bonding to
the tooth structure and fluoride release (Swartz,
Phillips & Clark, 1984; Lacefield, Reindl & Retif, 1985).
Core materials are mechanically adapted to post heads
following post cementation to a prepared root canal.
The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate the
retention of various core materials to two post-head
designs, and to determine whether ParaPost® dowels
with a flat head*, as compared to the ParaPost Unity®
dowels with a spherical head*, enhanced the retention
to core materials of various types: Valiant (silver amal-
gam)†, Bild-it (composite)‡ and Miracle Mix (glass–
ionomer cement)§. In addition, the retention of the
core material, as assessed by tensile strength compared
* Whaledent Inc., New York, NY, U.S.A.
†
l.d. Caulk Co., Milford, DE, U.S.A.
‡
Jeneric/Pentron Inc., Wallingford, CT, U.S.A.
§
G.C. Int., Scottsdale, AZ, U.S.A.
483
484 M . Z A L K I N D et al.

to compressive strength, was used to determine

whether there is a correlation between them.

Materials and methods

A total of 60 samples were prepared and fabricated
with core material covering the post head.

Sample preparation

The models were made in Perspex material¶ moulds

with engraved tube-shaped cylinders, 7 mm in diame-
ter, lined with copper bands. The copper bands ex-
tended 2 mm above the mould to facilitate removal
from the mould. A channel for post placement was Fig. 2. Copper bands lined up in a Perspex mould with channels
prepared in the centre of each cylinder (Figs 1 and 2). for posts.

Two types of posts were used to prepare the samples:

ParaPost Plus® dowels, which have a flat head; and
and flattened and smoothened with a football-shaped
ParaPost Unity® dowels, which have a spherical head
burnisher.
(Fig. 3). After the copper bands were placed, with the
After 75 h, the copper bands were removed from the
posts in the centre, in the Perspex moulds, the core
mould, cut with a high-speed diamond and then
material was condensed around the post, to a height of
peeled from the finished post and core samples (Fig. 5).
1 mm above the embedded post (Fig. 4).
The samples were divided into groups, as described
Silver amalgam cores were prepared by triturating
in Table 1.
Valiant amalgam capsules with an amalgam tritura-
tor**. An automatic condenser†† was used to place the
triturated silver amalgam into the copper bands around Retention test (tensile strength)
the post heads to maintain uniform pressure. Excess
The tensile strength was measured using an Instron
mercury was removed and the surface flattened and
testing machine‡‡. A flat metal plate was prepared with
smoothened with a football-shaped burnisher.
a hole in the centre of the post, in which the sample
Composite samples were prepared by mixing the
could be placed with the core leaning on the plate. The
material according to the manufacturers’ instructions.
post was held by the grip in the lower part of the
Glass – ionomer samples were prepared by mixing a
Instron (Fig. 6). The tensile strength plots were
scoop of powder with a drop of liquid, according to the
recorded by moving the Instron heads apart. The In-
manufacturers’ instructions. The mixed materials were
stron settings were: 500 kg tensile load, vertical pulling
then packed in the copper bands around the post heads
force of 0·1 mm/min and paper movement rate of
5 cm/h. The plots were recorded as force per unit of
movement.
To estimate the significance of each of the post-head
designs and of the tested materials, a two-factor ANOVA
was used. A Scheffe test was also carried out in cases of
significant ANOVA values. To compare the two-head
designs for each of the three materials, three non-
paired t-tests with Bouferroni corrections were
Fig. 1. Schematic drawing of sample placed in a Perspex mould. conducted.
¶
Polymethyl methacrylate, Polivar, Rome, Italy.
** Silmat, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein.
†† ‡‡
KaVo Dentale Medizinische Instrumente, Biberach, Germany. Model 1114, Instron Inc., High Wycombe, U.K.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 27; 483–487


Results
Ten samples of each core material – post were originally
used. However, one composite – ParaPost Unity® post
sample, three glass – ionomer – ParaPost Plus® posts, and
one glass – ionomer – ParaPost Unity® post were dam-
aged during the study and were therefore not included
(Table 1).
The retention values (tensile strengths) of ParaPost
Plus® and ParaPost Unity® posts with various cores
(silver amalgam, composite and glass – ionomer) were
measured. A two-way ANOVA for head design and
restorative materials gave significant values for both
variables (PB 0·0001).
As shown in Table 2, the ParaPost Plus® design gave
higher tensile strength values for all the test materials
(PB 0·001). Comparison of the retention values of
different core materials showed the best retention with
composite, silver amalgam was less retentive, and
glass – ionomer cement had the lowest retention.
Fig. 3. ParaPost® (a) and ParaPost Unity® (b) posts.
© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 27; 483 – 487
DESIGN OF METAL POST HEADS 485
Fig. 4. Core material condensed into copper bands which are
placed in a Perspex mould.
All pair-wise comparisons of different materials were
statistically significant (P B0·05) for all post-head
designs.
Discussion
This study investigated the retention of ParaPost Plus®
and ParaPost Unity® post heads to various core materi-
als. Several researchers have measured the retention of
various post heads to different core materials (Arcorcia
et al., 1989; Kane, Burgess & Summit, 1990; Millstein &
Nathanson, 1991; Chang & Millstein, 1993; Cohen et
al., 1996). Retentive values between post head and
core materials indicated that more force was required
to remove the core from ParaPost Plus® than from
ParaPost Unity® posts. The results of our study are in
agreement with findings in another study (Chang &
Millstein, 1993). The higher retention by ParaPost
Plus® posts, compared to ParaPost Unity® posts, sug-
gested that surface roughness has a greater effect on
this parameter than post design. The surface of the
Para Post Unity® head is relatively smooth compared to
that of the ParaPost Plus® head, which is rough with
many closely packed small markings.
Comparing the removal of various cores from posts,
the composite material particles were found to be more
strongly retained by both ParaPost Plus® and ParaPost
Unity® posts than Valiant silver amalgam or Miracle
Mix glass–ionomer cement. The retention of silver
amalgam was slightly less than that of composite, while
that of the glass–ionomer was significantly lower than
486 M . Z A L K I N D et al.

Fig. 6. Schematic drawing of sample placed in the universal

testing machine.

composite, but the differences were not clinically sig-

Fig. 5. Post and core sample ready to be tested.
that of the other two materials. Other researchers re-
ported similar results (Volwiler et al., 1989; Chang &
Millstein, 1993; Cohen et al., 1995). It has been re-
ported that silver amalgam retain slightly more
strongly to the post head than composite (Chang &
Millstein, 1993). With respect to the retention of glass–
ionomer, the results of other investigators were in
keeping with the findings reported in this study: Mira-
cle Mix glass – ionomer cement is much less retentive
than silver amalgam or composite (Cohen et al., 1995).
In addition, silver amalgam and composite were the
most retentive, with only small differences between
them. Silver amalgam was slightly less retentive than
nificant. According to most studies, glass–ionomer ce-
ment is the least retentive core material (Arcorcia et al.,
1989; Cohen et al., 1995).
Miracle Mix consists of a combination of glass pow-
der with amalgam alloy particles, hand-spatulated with
liquid. The viscosity and mechanical properties depend
on the powder-to-liquid ratio, which may explain the
lower retention of glass–ionomer compared to com-
posite and silver amalgam.
Conclusions
The following conclusions can be drawn:
(1) The rhomboid design of the ParaPost Plus® dowel
head was significantly more retentive than the spheri-
cal ParaPost Unity® dowel head.
(2) Composite core material was more retentive with
both post-head designs, and was closely followed by
silver amalgam.
(3) Glass–ionomer core material was significantly less
retentive than either silver amalgam or composite core
materials.

Table 1. Distribution of samples

Glass–ionomer Composite Silver amalgam Total

ParaPost Plus® 10 10 10 30
ParaPost Unity® 10 10 10 30

Total 20 20 20 60

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 27; 483–487

 DESIGN OF METAL POST HEADS 487

Table 2. Mean tensile strengths of restorative materials with various post-head designs

Restorative material Group Number of samples Mean tensile strength (MPa) Standard error Significance*

Silver amalgam ParaPost Plus® 10 18·30 1·44 0·001

ParaPost Unity® 10 14·45 1·95 0·001

Composite ParaPost Plus® 10 22·84 1·60 0·001

ParaPost Unity® 10 19·57 1·85 0·001

Glass–ionomer ParaPost Plus® 7 6·00 0·86 0·001

ParaPost Unity® 9 4·07 0·91 0·001

* Unpaired t-test with Bonferroni correction

References
ARCORCIA, C.J., DEWALD, J.P., MOODY, C.R. & FERRACANE, J.L.
(1989) A comparative study of bond strength of amalgam and
alloy – glass ionomer cores. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 16, 301.
ASSIF, D. & GORFIL, C. (1994) Biomechanical considerations in
restoring endodontically treated teeth. Journal of Prosthetic Den-
tistry, 71, 565.
BARABAN, D.J. (1967) The restoration of pulpless teeth. Dental
Clinics of North America, 11, 633.
CHANG, W.C. & MILLSTEIN, P.L. (1993) Effect of design of prefabri-
cated post heads on core materials. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
69, 475.
COHEN, B.I., PAGNILLO, M., CONDOS, S. & DEUTSCH, A.S. (1995)
Comparison of the torsional forces at failure for seven post
systems. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 74, 50.
COHEN, B.I., PAGNILLO, M.K., CONDOS, S. & DEUTSCH, A.S. (1996)
Four different core materials measured for fracture strength in
combination with five different designs of endodontic posts.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 76, 487.
GREENFELD, D.S., ROYDHOUSE, R.H., MARSHALL, F.J. & SCHONER,
B.A. (1989) A comparison of two post systems under applied
compressive shear loads. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 61, 17.
KAHN, F.H. (1991) Selecting a post system. Journal of the American
Dental Association, 122, 70.
KAHN, F.H., ROSENBERG, P.A., SCHULMAN, A. & PINES, H. (1996)
Comparison of fatigue for three prefabricated threaded post
systems. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 75, 148.
KANE, J.J., BURGESS, J.O. & SUMMIT, J.B. (1990) Resistance of
.
amalgam coronal-radicular restoration. Journal of Prosthetic Den-
tistry, 63, 607.
LACEFIELD, W.R., REINDL, H.C. & RETIF, D.H. (1985) Tensile bond
strength of glass ionomer cement. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
53, 194.
MILLSTEIN, P.L. & NATHANSON, D. (1991) Retention between a
serrated steel dowel of different core materials. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 65, 480.
MORGAN, S.M. (1996) Restoration of pulpless teeth: application of
traditional principles in present and future context. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 75, 375.
PEREL, M.C. & MUROFF, F.I. (1972) Clinical criteria for posts and
cores. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 28, 405.
SOKOL, D. (1984) Effective use of current core and post concepts.
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 52, 231.
SWARTZ, M.L., PHILLIPS, R.W. & CLARK, J.E. (1984) Long term
fluoride release from glass ionomer cements. Journal of Dental
Reserach, 63, 158.
TORBJORNER, A., KARLSSON, S. & ODMAN, P. (1995) Survival rate
and failure characteristics for two post designs. Journal of
Prosthetic Dentistry, 73, 439.
TRABERT, K.C. & COONEY, J.P. (1984) The endodontically treated
teeth. Restorative concepts and techniques. Dental Clinics of North
America, 28, 923.
VOLWILER, R.A., NICOLS, J.I. & HARRINGTON, G.W. (1989) A com-
parison of three core build-up materials used in conjunction with
two post systems in endodontically treated anterior teeth.
Journal of Endodontics, 15, 355.
Correspondence: Dr Maya Zalkind, Hebrew University-Hadassah
School of Dental Medicine, P.O. Box 12272, Jerusalem, Israel.

© 2000 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 27; 483 – 487
This document is a scanned copy of a printed document. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy.
Users should refer to the original published version of the material.