Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40399871›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2025

Effectiveness of horizontal posts to support MOD cavities compared with other restorative approaches in endodontically treated teeth: systematic review with meta-analysis of laboratory studies.

Mohammed Ahmed Alghauli, Ahmed Yaseen Alqutaibi, Redhwan Saleh Al-Gabri, Abdulmajeed Abdulaziz Baik, Anas Mazen Mahrous, Arwa Bafail, Samah Saker

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-AnalysisComparative Study
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Mohammed Ahmed AlghauliDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen. malghawli100@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2112-5326
Ahmed Yaseen AlqutaibiDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6536-8269
Redhwan Saleh Al-GabriDepartment of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0006-5962-6907
Abdulmajeed Abdulaziz BaikEndodontics Resident, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia.
Anas Mazen MahrousDental Student, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Medina, Saudi Arabia.
Arwa BafailRestorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Al Madinah, Saudi Arabia.
Samah SakerSubstitutive Dental Sciences Department, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, Al-Madinah, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEndodontically treated teeth often face challenges in maintaining structural integrity, particularly when restored with MOD cavities. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the mechanical behavior of endodontically treated premolar and molar teeth with MOD cavities, restored with horizontal posts and composite materials, compared with alternative restorative approaches such as fiber-reinforced composites and indirect restorations.

methodsA comprehensive search was conducted in December 2024 across various databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. All studies that examined the application of horizontal posts in posterior endodontically treated teeth compared to other restorative methods were included, and manual searches of included studies and associated scientific websites were performed. The meta-analysis was accomplished through the Review Manager (RevMan 5.4) of the Cochrane Collaboration.

resultsThe web search yielded 718 records, and 1 was added from the manual search. Following the PRISMA guidelines, 26 studies were ultimately included in this review. Horizontal posts in endodontically treated teeth significantly improved fracture resistance compared with untreated MOD cavities and many restorative methods, though they did not match sound teeth. Combining horizontal posts with materials like polyethylene fiber Ribbond or nanohybrid composites achieved fracture resistance comparable to sound teeth, while finite element analyses showed reduced stress concentrations. Horizontal posts also reduced non-restorable fractures compared to MOD cavities and bulk-fill composites, highlighting their mechanical advantage, especially when paired with advanced composites.

conclusionsThe insertion of horizontal posts significantly increased the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars and molars compared to composite restorations. Notably, fracture resistance levels were comparable to those observed in teeth restored with glass-fiber-reinforced composite and indirect ceramic restorations. However, there was no evident benefit from inserting root canal posts in enhancing fracture resistance. None of the restorative approaches achieved the fracture resistance levels of intact premolar and molar teeth. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANT: Proper support of ETTs with MOD cavities restored with direct composite restorations can preserve tooth integrity, particularly in case of large cavities. These supporting concepts are crucial in achieving complications-free restorations that maintain long-term clinical functionality.

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, PermanentPost and Core TechniqueTooth, NonvitalBicuspidComposite ResinsDental Stress AnalysisHumansComposite ResinsFiber postsFiber reinforced compositeFracture resistanceHorizontal postsInlayMechanical behaviorOcclusal RibbondsOnlayStress distribution

Identifiers

PMID40399871
PMCPMC12093607

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.