Ruddle CJ Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod. 2004; 30:(12)827-845
Peciuliene V, Rimkuviene J, Maneliene R, Pletkus R Factors influencing the removal of posts. Stomatologija. 2005; 7:(1)21-23
Abbott PV Incidence of root fractures and methods used for post removal. Int Endod J. 2002; 35:(1)63-67
Castrisos T, Abbott PV A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice. Int Endod J. 2002; 35:(2)172-180
Torabinejad M, Corr R, Handysides R, Shabahang S Outcomes of nonsurgical retreatment and endodontic surgery: a systematic review. J Endod. 2009; 35:(7)930-937
Naito T Surgical or nonsurgical treatment for teeth with existing root fillings?. Evid Based Dent. 2010; 11:(2)54-55
Tait CME, Ricketts DNJ, Higgins AJ Restoration of the root-filled tooth: pre-operative assessment. Br Dent J. 2005; 198:395-404
Ekuni D, Yamamoto T, Takeuchi N Retrospective study of teeth with a poor prognosis following non-surgical periodontal treatment. J Clin Periodontol. 2009; 36:(4)343-348
Pitt Ford TR, Rhodes JS Root canal retreatment: 1. Case assessment and treatment planning. Dent Update. 2004; 31:34-39
Ng YL, Mann V, Gulabivala K Outcome of secondary root canal treatment: a systematic review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2008; 41:(12)1026-1046
Roda RS, Gettleman BH Nonsurgical retreatment, 10th edn. St Louis, Mo: Elsevier Mosby; 2010
Gorni FG, Gagliani MM The outcome of endodontic retreatment: a 2-yr follow-up. J Endod. 2004; 30:(1)1-4
Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC Retreatment of non-healing endodontic therapy and management of mishaps, 6th edn. USA2007
Garrido AD, Oliveira AG, Osório JE, Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD Evaluation of several protocols for the application of ultrasound during the removal of cast intraradicular posts cemented with zinc phosphate cement. Int Endod J. 2009; 42:(7)609-613
Chandler NP, Qualtrough AJ, Purton DG Comparison of two methods for the removal of root canal posts. Quintessence Int. 2003; 34:(7)534-536
Alfredo E, Garrido AD, Souza-Filho CB, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sousa-Neto MD In vitro evaluation of the effect of core diameter for removing radicular post with ultrasonic. J Oral Rehabil. 2004; 31:590-594
Soares JA, Brito-Júnior M, Fonseca DR Influence of luting agents on time required for cast post removal by ultrasound: an in vitro study. Appl Oral Sci. 2009; 17:(3)145-149
Smith BJ The removal of fractured post fragments in general dental practice using ultrasonic vibration. Dent Update. 2002; 29:(10)488-491
Rhodes JS Disassembly techniques to gain access to pulp chambers and root canals during non-surgical root canal re-treatment. Endod Topics. 2011; 19:22-32
Krell KV, Jordan RD, Madison S, Aquilino S Using ultrasonic scalers to remove fractured root posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1986; 55:46-49
Gomes APM, Kubo CH, Santos RAB, Santos DR, Padilha RQ The influence of ultrasound on the retention of cast posts cemented with different agents. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:93-99
Satterthwaite JD, Stokes AN Dentinal crack incidence following ultrasonic vibration to intra-radicular posts. N Z Dent J. 2004; 100:105-109
Dominici JT, Clark S, Scheez J, Eleazer PD Analysis of heat generation using ultrasonic vibration for post removal. J Endod. 2005; 31:301-303
Cherukara GP, Pollock GR, Wright PS Case report: removal of fractured endodontic posts with a sonic instrument. Eur J Prosthodont Rest Dent. 2002; 10:(1)23-26
Dixon EB, Kaczkowski PJ, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW Comparison of two ultrasonic instruments for post removal. J Endod. 2002; 28:111-115
Buoncristiani J, Seto BG, Caputo AA Evaluation of ultrasonic and sonic instruments for intraradicular post removal. J Endod. 1994; 20:(10)486-489
Carrotte P Endodontic problems. Br Dent J. 2005; 198:127-133
Dismantling restorations from teeth which require endodontic re-treatment can be difficult. Many dentists are reluctant to remove posts through fear of weakening, perforating or fracturing the remaining root structure. A variety of techniques have been described and developed for post removal. This is the first in a series of two papers which provide an overview of these techniques. The rationale for endodontic re-treatment, pre-operative assessment and factors affecting post removal are discussed. Techniques are illustrated with clinical case reports.
The second paper describes the use of specific post removal devices and the removal of fibre posts.
Clinical Relevance: Endodontic re-treatment has a more successful long-term outcome than surgical treatment for failed root canal treatment. This may involve the removal of existing post restorations or portions thereof.
Article
Endodontic re-treatment can be complex and challenging. The goal is to access the pulp chamber, remove materials from the root canal space and, if present, address deficiencies or repair defects that are pathological or iatrogenic in origin.1 This may involve the removal of an existing post.
Many dentists are reluctant to attempt post removal through fear of weakening, perforating or fracturing the remaining root structure.2 As a result, a high number of patients are referred to specialist centres by general practitioners requesting removal or surgical treatment. However, the presence of a post should not be considered as an indication in itself for periapical surgery.3
Various techniques have been designed and developed for post removal. Dental practitioners should be reassured that, with good case selection, post removal is a predictable procedure. Root fractures rarely occur if appropriate techniques and devices are used.3,4
Register now to continue reading
Thank you for visiting Dental Update and reading some of our resources. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:
