Minimum residual root dentin thickness of mandibular premolars restored with a post: A finite element analysis study.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Thin root dentin after post space preparation will increase the risk of root fracture. However, the minimum residual root dentin thickness to be preserved after post space preparation is unclear.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this finite element analysis (FEA) study was to measure the residual root dentin thicknesses and analyze the stress distributions of post-restored mandibular premolars.

MATERIAL AND

METHODS

The cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) data of 90 first and second mandibular premolars from Chinese participants (44 men, 46 women; aged between 20 and 79 years) were analyzed. Cross-sections 5 to 9 mm from the radiologic apex were used to measure the buccolingual and mesiodistal root diameters. The probability that the residual thickness of the buccolingual and mesiodistal root walls would be no less than 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1 mm after post space preparation with a #2 Peeso reamer was calculated. Six 3-dimensional finite element models of cast post-restored mandibular premolars with 0.5, 0.6, 0.7, 0.8, 0.9, and 1 mm mesial and distal root dentin thicknesses were established. A static force of 100 N was applied to the buccal cusp tip at 45, 60, 75, and 90 degrees to the long axis of the tooth, and the maximum tensile stress and von Mises stress were analyzed. The Bonferroni post hoc test (αcorrected=.003) was used for multiple comparisons.

RESULTS

The buccolingual root diameter of mandibular premolars was wider than the mesiodistal root diameter. The probabilities that the mesiodistal residual root dentin thickness of mandibular first and second premolars at 5 mm from the apex would be no less than 1 mm after post space preparation with a #2 Peeso reamer were only 10% and 28%, respectively. The maximum tensile stress was at a minimum when the mesial and distal residual root dentin thickness was 0.6 mm in the external cervical dentin adjacent to the crestal bone and 1 mm in the apical dentin corresponding to the apex of the post. The maximum tensile stress of the mandibular premolar model with 0.6-mm mesial and distal residual root dentin thicknesses was lower than that with 0.9 mm and 1.0 mm thicknesses (Pcorrected<.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Short posts or smaller instruments for post space preparation are recommended to obtain a 1-mm residual root dentin thickness in the mesiodistal direction of mandibular premolars. If a 1-mm thickness cannot be preserved, a minimum residual root dentin thickness of 0.6 to 0.9 mm in the mesiodistal direction should be retained.