Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34274439›Full record

SynthesisJournal of dentistry2021

Is a fiber post better than a metal post for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Marielle Dias Martins, Rafael Binato Junqueira, Rodrigo Furtado de Carvalho, Mariane Floriano Lopes Santos Lacerda, Daniele Sorgatto Faé, Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo Lemos

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Enhancement of Bond Strength, Degree of Conversion and Biocompatibility In Vitro Using a Hollow Glass Fiber Post With an Optical Illuminator in the Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Marielle Dias MartinsDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Rafael Binato JunqueiraDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Rodrigo Furtado de CarvalhoDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Mariane Floriano Lopes Santos LacerdaDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Daniele Sorgatto FaéPostgraduate Program in Applied Health Sciences (PPGCAS), Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil.
Cleidiel Aparecido Araujo LemosDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora (UFJF), Campus Avançado Governador Valadares, Governador Valadares, Minas Gerais, Brazil. Electronic address: cleidiel.lemos@ufjf.edu.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate systematically the evidence about the failure rates of endodontically treated teeth (ETT) restored with intraradicular metal posts (MPs) or fiber posts (FPs). DATA: The review protocol was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42020189792). Eligibility criteria included randomized clinical trials (RCT) and prospective clinical trials (PCT) that compared the failures between FP and MP restorations for ETT. Meta-analyses were conducted for failure rates using fixed- and random-effects models. Subgroup and funnel plot analyses were performed. SOURCES: Four electronic databases (MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Cochrane Library), manual, and grey literature were screened by two researchers independently for articles published until November 2020 without language or time restrictions. For the analysis of the risk of bias, the Cochrane collaboration tool and ROBINS-I were used. The certainty of the evidence was evaluated using GRADE. STUDY SELECTION: Ten studies were included. A total of 704 participants with a mean age of 42.7 years with a total of 844 ETT were restored using 453 FPs and 391 MPs. The FPs presented similar failures to that with MPs (P=0.39; risk ratio [RR]:0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.52 to 1.29). Subgroup analysis showed no significant differences between the FPs and MPs for the anterior region (P=0.60; RR:0.88; [CI]: 0.54 to 1.42), posterior region (P=0.52; RR:1.18; [CI]: 0.71 to 1.98), root fracture (P=0.44; RR:0.78; [CI]: 0.41 to 1.49), and debonding (P=0.56; RR:1.27; [CI]: 0.57 to 2.80). Additionally, FP showed similar failures compared with those of cast (P=0.36; RR:0.63; [CI]: 0.23 to 1.72) and prefabricated MPs (P=0.68; RR:0.90; [CI]: 0.54 to 1.50). The RCT and PCT studies revealed a low risk of bias for most of the domains. However, the certainty of evidence was considered low.

conclusionNo evidence of difference was observed for failure rates between FPs, and MPs, independent of region and different MPs used in ETT. However, further well-conducted clinical studies with high-quality evidence are encouraged. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Our results indicate that both retainer posts can be considered an adequate alternative in restoring ETT. Therefore, the choice of post (fiber or metal) could be based on dentist preference or individual characteristics of the patient as the failure rates for different posts are similar.

Indexed as

Post and Core TechniqueTooth, NonvitalAdultBiasHumansMetalsRiskMetalsDevitalizedIntraradicular postNonvitalPulplessRetainersSuccess

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.