13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022].
See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1997 24; 882-887
Mechanical properties of endodontic posts
H. L A M B J E R G - H A N S E N & E. A S M U S S E N
Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
SUMMARY Twenty-two commercially available
endodontic posts were examined with regard to
stiffness, elastic limit and resistance to fracture.
Differences in mechanical properties w^ere explained
by differences in width, shape and surface structure.
Introduction
Endodontic (root canal) treatment of an otherwise intact
tooth reduces its resistance to fracture by 5%, and in
cases where MOD cavities are present, the resistance is
reduced by 69% (Reeh, Messer & Dougfas, 1989).
To prevent fractures of endodontically treated teeth
that have lost major portions of their clinical crowns,
endodontic posts and cores are commonly employed.
There are three classes of posts and cores: (i) a plastic
core on a prefabricated post; (ii) a plastic core on pins
anchored in dentin; and (iii) a cast post and core. The
first class consists of two component parts, namely a
prefabricated metal post and a plastic core. The latter is
made of either amalgam, composite resin or glass-
ionomer (Arvidson, Brunell & Soremark, 1982;
Engelman, 1988). In cases where major portions of the
tooth crown have been lost, but where it is desirable to
preserve a vital pulp, the use of endodontic posts is
precluded. Instead, metal pins anchored in dentine
retain a plastic core material (Lovdahl & Nicholls, 1977).
The third class of endodontic post and core assembly,
the cast post and core, is made of a single uniform
material, usually gold. However, an exception is that of
a prefabricated post to which a core material is attached
through casting. In vitro experiments have shown that
the cast post and core provides the restored tooth with
a fracture resistance that is greater than that provided
882
School of Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, Univ
In the selection of an endodontic post, its stability
rather than its retention should be of primary clinical
concern. Accordingly, the authors advocate the use
of endodontic posts that have a cylindrical coronal
portion and a conical apical portion.
by a plastic core (Hoag, Ed & Dwyer, 1982; Plamans
et ai, 1986). The reasons seem to be that the cast post
and core is homogeneous, that it fits snugly in the root
canal, and that it shows superior mechanical properties.
However, there are cases where the use of a cast post
and core provides no advantages, for example, where its
use results in inadequate retention (short root canals),
where its use requires excessive removal of tooth
substance, and where its use is financially burdensome
to the patient. Consequently, the use of a plastic core
may be advantageous, provided that it results in
adequate strength. In fact, a plastic amalgam core on a
prefabricated metal post is the most common endodontic
restoration in molar teeth (Hoag et ai, 1982; Plasmans
etai., 1996).
The selection of a prefabricated endodontic post is
determined by the following factors: (i) biocompatibility;
(ii) stiffness and stability; and (iii) retention.
Biocompatibility dictates the use of gold, titanium or
palliag posts (Arvidson et al., 1982). Only the latter two
types of posts are commonly used, and only self-cutting
titanium is used for anchoring pins in dentine (Lovdahl
& Nicholls, 1977). The strength of an endodontically
treated tooth depends foremost on the stiffness of both
the post and core and, in cases of plastic cores, on the
stiffness and strength of the post (Arvidson et al, 1982;
Caputo & Standlee, 1987); the latter issue prompted
this report. In addition, we investigated the retention
1997 Blackwell Science Ltd
 13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
• ; ' ::• END ODONTIC POSTS 883

Table 1, Stiffness, elastic limit and fracture strength of titanium posts; stiffness is defined as the force (N) yielding a deformation of
0-1 mm in a 7 mm post

Brand Diameter (mm) Stiffness (N) Elastic limit (N) Fracture strength (N)

Boston 10 2 ± 0-4 5 ±2 11 ± 32
Boston 1-2 4 ± 0-4 16 ± 2 26 ± 2
Filpost 13 8 ± 1-7 2 4 ± 11 44 ± 0
Flexi Post 13 7 ± 1-7 30 ± 8 52 ± 4
Fysika 1-3 12 ± 2-6 33 ± 2 50 ± 2
Fysika N 1-3 11 ± 0-4 47 ± 4 70 ± 3
Parapost 1.3 8 ± 0.4 35 ± 3 59 ± 4
RH 13 9 ± 1-3 38 ± 5 58 ± 2
Unimetric 215T 1-4 21 ± 7-3 99 ± 24 138 ±9
Dentatus Classic 1-5 12 ± 1-7 19 ± 1 33 ±3
Parapost 1-5 13 ± 1-3 54 ± 14 101 ±4
Maillefer RS 1-5 23 ± 3-0 53 ± 23 146 ±6
Boston 1-6 15 ± 5-5 43 ± 10 84 ± 15
Filpost 1-6 24 ± 2-6 53 ± 8 81 ± 1
Fysika 1-6 21 ± 7-7 80 ± 4 119 ± 13
Fysika N 1-6 15 ± 09 100 ± 2 143 ± 2
RH 1-6 18 ± 09 68 ± 2 122 ± 3
Flexi Post 1-7 20 ± 0-9 80 ± 8 150 ± 13

Table 2. Stiffness, elastic limit and fracture strength of different types of Fysika posts; stiffness is defined as the force (N) yielding a
deformation of 0-1 mm in a 7 mm post

Material Diameter (mm) Stiffness (N) Elastic limit (N) Fracture strength (N)

Platinum gold 1-6 12 ± 0-4 74 ± 6 103 ± 12

Palliag 16 25 ± 3-8 62 ± 7 103 ± 12
German silver 16 16 ± 1-3 35 ± 2 65 ± 1
Stainless steel 1-6 35 ± 12-4 151 ± 22 219 ± 13

of an endodontic post in relation to its shape and surface
structure (design).
The literature on the mechanical properties of
endodontic posts is scarce (Peutzfeldt & Asmussen,
1990). Accordingly, it was our aim to examine the
crucial mechanical properties of the most common
commercially available endodontic posts. That is, we
examined the variables of stiffness, elastic limit and
resistance to fracture (fracture strength).
Materials and methods
A total of 22 different types of endodontic posts were
examined, of which 18 were titanium posts (Table 1).
For purposes of comparison, we also examined four
types of posts made of platinum-gold, palliag, German
silver and stainless steel (Table 2).
The posts were placed in a brass block ( 3 X 3 X 8 cm)
provided with artificial root canals of diameters
corresponding to those of the posts. The length of the
individual canal was adjusted to the length of the
individual post, thus ensuring that the loaded portion of
the post was of uniform length (7 mm) and of constant
diameter (given by the manufacturer). All loadings of
the posts were carried out by the Instron instrument
(constant cross-head speed of 5 mm per minute). The
experimental design is illustrated in Fig. 1.
For each type of endodontic post, three specimens
were used and the arithmetic mean for the three
specimens (« = 3 loadings) was used to present the
stiffness, elastic limit and fracture strength of the posts.
Stiffness was defined as the force (in N, where 1 kg is
approximately ION) necessary to produce a 0-1 mm
elastic deformation of a 7 mm long endodontic post.

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24; 882-887

884 H. LAMBJERG-HANSEN & E. ASMUSSEN
Fig. 1. Schematic illustration of the experimental design. The
brass block, provided with prefabricated canals, carries the
endodontic post, which, in turn, is loaded by an Instron
instrument. The brass block is supported by the V-shaped rest
(hatched).
The elastic limit (in N) was the maximum load (force)
that a 7 mm long post could tolerate before permanent
deformation. Fracture strength (in N) was the load
(force) necessary to cause total fracture of the post.
Results
The results are summarized in Tables 1 and 2. Table 1
shows that the stiffness, elastic limit and fracture
strength values of all titanium posts depended foremost
on the widths of the posts, as expressed through the
outer diameter (mm) of the posts. Among posts of
diameters 1-4 mm and 1-5 mm, the Unimetric 215T and
the RS posts showed the highest stiffness values of 21 N
and 23 N, respectively.
In contrast, the Dentatus Classic Post and the Parapost
showed rather low stiffness value. Among posts of
diameter 1-6 mm, the Filpost showed the highest
stiffness value, followed by the Fysika post. The Boston
and Fysika N posts showed the lowest stiffness values.
The elastic limits showed a wide range of variation.
The Unimetric 215T (1-4 mm) and Fysika N (1-6 mm)
posts showed the highest elastic limits of 99 N and
100 N, respectively. The Dentatus Classic (1-5 mm) and
Boston (1-6 mm) posts showed considerably lower
values. Also, the fracture strength values varied widely.
The Fysika N (1-3 mm) post had a markedly high
13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
fracture strength. Among the other posts, the Unimetri
215T and the RS posts, the Flexi Post and the Fysika T
post showed markedly higher fracture strength thai
did the remaining posts.
Table 2 shows that the stiffness, elastic limit anc
fracture strength values of a steel post exceeded thost
of the other endodontic posts. Also, a palliag posi
exceeded a platinum-gold post in regard to stiffness,
but not in regard to fracture strength.
Regression analyses showed that there were
significant correlations between stiffness and elastic
limit values (r = +0-78). This implies that posts with the
highest stiffness values also had the highest elastic limits.
Discussion
Our results showed that the mechanical properties of
endodontic posts depend largely on the widths of the
posts, as expressed by their outer diameter. However,
the mechanical properties of different titanium posts of
the same diameter vary widely. In addition to differences
in the composition of the titanium, the reason for these
differences was undoubtedly the different designs of
the different posts. Post designs could be classified as
either cylindrical or conical, and also as (i) posts provided
with grooves/serrations, (ii) posts provided with self-
cutting threads, and (iii) posts provided with sandblasted
or microforged surfaces (Orstavik & Holland, 1986).
Grooved and serrated posts (e.g. Dentatus Classic,
Boston) have an inner diameter that is less than the
outer diameter. In consequence, they show mechanical
properties that are inferior to those of 'smooth' posts.
The design (shape and surface) of an endodontic post
appears to be based on assumptions pertaining to
retention, defined as the resistance to displacement
along the long axis of the post. In contrast, stability is
defined as the resistance to displacement/bending
caused by forces acting at a right or oblique angle to
the long axis of the post.
It is well known that the retention of a cylindrical
post exceeds that of a conical post, and also that the
retention of grooved/serrated posts exceeds that of
smooth posts (Arvidson et al, 1982; Caputo & Standlee,
1987). If retention is the only factor of importance,
only cylindrical posts should be employed (Davy, Dilley
6r Krejci, 1981). However, the disadvantage of
cylindrical posts is the fact that the associated excessive
preparation of the root canal is likely to weaken the
root and increase the risk of root fracture, as illustrated
1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24; 882-887
 13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ENDODONTIC POSTS 885

Fig. 2. Schematic illustration of risk of root weakening through

the use of wide cylindrical endodontic posts. From Caputo &
Standlee (1987). Asterisks mark potential fracture sites.

in Fig. 2 (Trabert, Caputo & Abou-Rass, 1978; Arvidson

etai, 1982). Furthermore, to facilitate the escape of
excess luting agent, cylindrical posts are often provided
with grooves which, in turn, may result in inferior B
mechanical properties. The latter issue does not apply
to conical posts, because their shape resembles that of
Fig. 3. Endodontic posts of diameters 1-3 mm and 1 -6 mm, where
the root canal. This implies less weakening of the root,
the innovative conical apical portions are shown in A and B. For
but also weaker retention of the post. Consequently, comparison, the conventional conical FYSIKA post is shown in C.
the major portion of an ideal endodontic post should
have a cylindrical shape, and the minor apical portion
(3-4 mm) should have a conical shape.
In other words, a post with a cylindrical coronal
portion and a conical apical portion adapts well to the
anatomy of the root, and results in the minimum
weakening of the root (conical apical portion). The
cylindrical coronal portion provides optimum retention
and maximum mechanical properties, which, in turn,
depend on the diameter of the post at the entrance to
the root canal (Davy etai, 1981; Arvidson etal., 1982).
Examples of endodontic posts with cylindrical coronal
and conical apical portions are shown in Fig. 3.
Among the factors contributing to retention, the fit
of the post in the prepared root canal is crucial. In this
respect, it should be noted that all posts examined
were supplied with an individually matched (calibrated)
reamer for the preparation of the root canal, thus Fig. 4. Chewing forces acting on a veneer crown and post and
maximizing the fit of the post. core assembly. From Gordon 8- Metzger (1987).
It is our contention that retention has been given far
too much importance in the design of prefabricated retention (Fig. 4). When we disregard impact traumas,
endodontic posts. The major forces to which a post is the stability of a post-core assembly under normal
exposed act, more-or-less, at right angles to the long function will depend on the stiffness and elastic limit
axis of the post (Gordon & Metzger, 1987). That is, the of the post and the tensile/compressive strengths of the
major forces are of concern to stability rather than core material (Caputo & Standlee, 1987).

© 1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24; 882-887


886 H. LAMBJERG-HANSEN & E. ASMUSSEN
Fig. 5. Schematic illustrations of flexible (left) and rigid (right) posts and cores. A flexible post and core will result in marginal openings
and/or fractures of the luting agent.
The stiffness of the entire post-core assembly must
be able to resist, with the least possible deformation,
tbe forces of mastication. If not, the likely results are
marginal openings and secondary caries, or the entire
assembly may become fully dislodged (Fig. 5). This
implies that the dentist should select (i) endodontic
posts with high stiffness and high elastic limit values,
and (ii) posts with a high degree of retention. Thus, the
post must be of sufficient length, that is, a length that
is at least the same as the height of the clinical crown
(Arvidson etai, 1982; Reeh etal, 1989), unless several
posts or dentine-anchored pins are used. It was because
of these clinical considerations that we examined the
stiffness, elastic limit and fracture strength of different
commercially available endodontic posts.
As mentioned previously, the strength of an
endodontic post depends largely on its width (diameter),
in particular at the collum (neck) of tbe tooth.
Accordingly, it appears logical to select posts with large
widths. However, a large width often entails
considerable removal of root (tooth) substance, resulting
in a weakening of the root (Trabert et ai, 1978).
Endodontic posts are commonly of diameter 1-6 mm,
which is consistent with limited removal of tooth
substance. Moreover, endodontic posts of diameter
1-3 mm are used in rather narrow (thin) roots. As
shown in Table 1, endodontic posts of diameters less
than 1-3 mm display inferior mechanical properties, and
they can only provide retention - not stability.
Maximum chewing forces are in the order of 400-
500 N (Laurell, 1985). None of the examined posts can
withstand the latter forces; to obtain maximum stability
as well as strength, two posts should be used in multi-
rooted teeth (Kern, von Fraunhofer & Mueninghoff,
13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
1984; Caputo & Standlee, 1987). Two posts will also
increase retention. Finally, tbe fracture strength of an
endodontic post appears to be of theoretical interest
only, since total fracture results in concurrent
disintegration/dislodgement of the core material.
Conclusions
The mechanical properties of endodontic posts can only
be explained in part by the diameter (width) of the
posts. Among posts with identical diameter, there is a
certain amount of variation with regard to stiffness,
elastic limit and fracture strength, even when the posts
are made of the same material. The variations can be
explained by the design (shape/surface) of the posts,
which, frequently and erroneously, appears to be
dictated by speculation on retention rather than stability.
In addition to the factor of biocompatibility, it is our
opinion that the selection of an endodontic post should
be dictated by a primary concern for stiffness and elastic
limit, and only by a secondary concern for retention
features. Also, the use of two endodontic posts is
advocated for multi-rooted teeth. Among the
endodontic posts examined, superior mechanical
properties were associated with the Fysika posts, Filposts
and Maillefer posts, and the Unimetric and RS posts.
References
ARVIDSON, K . , BRUNELL, G. & SOREMARK, R. (1982) Intraradikuldra
Stiftforankringar. Scandinavian Society for Prosthetic Dentistry.
Karolinska Institut, Stockholm.
CAPUTO, A . A . & STANDLEE, J.P. (1987) Biomechanics in Clinical
Dentistry. Quintessence Publishing Co., London.
DAVY, D.T., DILLEY, G . L . & KREJCI, R . E . (1981) Determination of
1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24; 882-887

stress patterns in root-filled teeth incorporating various dowel
designs. Journal of Dental Research, 60, 1310.
ENGELMAN, M . J . (1988) Core materials. Journal of the California
Dental Association, 16, 41.
GORDON, M . & METZGER, Z. (1987) Resistance to horizontal forces
of dowel and amalgam-core restorations: a comparative study.
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 14, 337.
HoAG, E.P., ED, M . & DWYER, T.G. (1982) A comparative evaluation
of three post and core techniques. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
47, 177.
KERN, S.B., VON FRAUNHOFER, J . A . & MUENINGHOFF, L . A . (1984) An
in vitro comparison of two dowel and core techniques for
endodontically treated molars. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry,
51, 509.
LAURELL, L. (1985) Occlusal forces and chewing ability in dentitions
with cross-arch bridges. Swedish Dental Journal, 9, Suppl. 26.
LovDAHL, P.E. & NiCHOLLS, J.I. (1977) Pin-retained amalgam cores
vs. cast gold dowel cores. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 38, 307.
1997 Blackwell Science Ltd, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 24; 882-887
13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
ENDODONTIC POSTS 887
ORSTAVIK, D . & HOLLAND, R.I. (1986) Prefabrikerte rotkanalstifter.
Tandlaegebladet, 90, 411.
PEUTZFELDT, A . & AsMussEN, E. (1990) Flexural and fatigue strength
of root canal posts. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research,
98, 550.
PLASMANS, P.J.J.M., VissEREN, L.G.H., VRUHOEF, M . M . A . &• KAYSER,
A.A. (1986) In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques
for endodontically treated molars. Journal ofEndodontics, 12, 382.
REEH, E.S., MESSER, H . H . & DOUGLAS, W . H . (1989) Reduction in
tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative
procedures. Journal ofEndodontics, 15, 512.
TRABERT, K . C , CAPUTO, A.A. & ABOU-RASS, M . (1978) Tooth
fracture - a comparison of endodontic and restorative
treatments. Journal of Endodontics, 4, 341.
Correspondence: Dr H. Lambjerg-Hansen, Vesterbrogade 19, DK-
1620 Copenhagen V, Denmark.
.:„ J i
13652842, 1997, 12, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2842.1997.tb00289.x by Universidad Autonoma De Yucatan, Wiley Online Library on [06/12/2022]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License