RESUMO
AIM: Post and core procedures are important clinical methods in routine dental practice. The present research aimed to radiographically assess the quality of post seating performed by undergraduate students at the College of Dentistry, Jazan University. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 343 periapical X-rays of cemented posts (170 from males and 173 from females) were assessed. The assessment covered tooth type, arch, gender, type of post, length of post in relation to the crown and root lengths, the presence of any abnormality in post space, status of the remaining gutta-percha (GP), and the presence or absence of spaces between the end of post and GP. Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) program (version 21), and associations between variables were determined using chi-squared or Fisher's exact tests. RESULTS: Maxillary teeth were the most frequently restored with posts, and the majority (41%) comprised incisors. Similarly, glass fiber post (69%) and taper-shaped posts (86%) were the most used posts. The majority of posts (81.6%) featured a width one-thirds that of the root. Lengths of posts were twice (58%) or equal to (51%) crown and root length respectively. More than 55% of cases presented 3 to 5 mm of GP at their apical portion, and 29% reached more than 5 mm. Approximately 5 to 8% of assessed cases revealed widening of periodontal ligaments, presence of periapical pathologies, and deviation of posts from the canal wall. Most cases (75%) showed the absence of space between GP and the post end. CONCLUSION: Qualities of assessed post and core restorations conducted by the 6th year dental students were clinically acceptable. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Periodic evaluation to determine the quality of delivered treatments is a vital cue for health service authorities. This evaluation will improve quality of services and treatments provided by dental students to their patients under the supervision of the faculty. Results obtained will also provide authorities with a clear feedback about academic infrastructure.
