IOSR Journal of Dental and Medical Sciences (IOSR-JDMS) e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 18, Issue 1 Ser. 10 (January. 2019), PP 16-21 www.iosrjournals.org DOI: 10.9790/0853-1801101621 ww.iosrjournals.org 16 | Page Comparative analysis of four direct post endodontic restorations: A short term study Dr. Monica Goyal 1 , Dr. B. S. Keshava Prasad 2 , Dr. H Murali Rao 3 1 (Department of Conservative Dentsitry and Endodontics, D. A.P. M RV Dental College, India) 2 (Department of Conservative Dentsitry and Endodontics, D. A.P. M RV Dental College, India) 3 (Department of Conservative Dentsitry and Endodontics, D. A.P. M RV Dental College, India) Corresponding Author: Dr. Monica Goyal Abstract: Aim: The restoration of endodontically treated teeth is a topic that is extensively studied and yet remains controversial from many perspectives. This study aimed to evaluate the compressive strength of direct post endodontic restoration. Materials and methods: 40 extracted maxillary molars were selected. Root canal treatment was done for the teeth and then divided into 4 groups for direct post endodontic restoration: i) silver amalgam, ii) high strength glass ionomer cement, iii) composite resin iv) Cention N (a new alkasite material). The teeth were then subjected to compressive stress in a Universal Testing Machine. Results: The compressive strength of silver amalgam, Cention N and composite resin were comparable. The compressive strength of glass ionomer cement showed lesser compressive strength to the other groups. Conclusion: Silver amalgam, composite resin and Cention N showed no difference in compressive strength. Glass ionomer cement showed lesser compressive strength compared to the others. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Submission: 05-01-2019 Date of acceptance: 21-01-2019 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I. Introduction A successful clinical outcome of endodontically treated teeth depends on adequate root canal treatment as well as on adequate restorative treatment performed afterwards (1) . Recently, attention has been focused on procedures performed after the completion of root canal treatment and their impact on the prognosis. (2)(3) Numerous problems are present in endodontically treated because of coronal destruction from dental caries, fractures, and previous restorations or endodontic techniques. This results in a loss of tooth structure and a reduction in the capability of the tooth to resist a myriad of intraoral forces. Conservation of dentin is mandatory, and restorations that support this concept are preferable. (4) Ray and Trope observed that a combination of good coronal restorations and endodontic treatment resulted in fewer periradicular inflammatory lesions, whereas poor coronal restorations and endodontic treatment resulted in the absence of periradicular inflammation in only 18.1% of the teeth examined. Furthermore, when poor endodontic treatments were followed by good permanent restorations that, the resultant success rate was 67.6%.The authors concluded that apical periodontal health depends significantly more on the coronal restoration than on the technical quality of the endodontic treatment (1)(3)(5) . Compressive strength of core materials is important because they usually replace a large bulk of tooth structure and therefore must resist multidirectional masticatory forces. Amalgam has been the core of choice because it is strong and dimensionally stable. (6) Improvements in composites and the development of enamel–dentine bonding systems have stimulated trends towards more conservative techniques. (7) With amalgam, the clinician may be confident of an acceptable long-term performance, given the substantial documented evidence of success for amalgam as a direct core build-up restorative material. New formulations of GIC cements have resulted in an increasing range of applications for such materials in posterior teeth, which now enjoy substantial acceptance as an alternative core build-up material. (7) Glass-ionomer cements have certain characteristics that are superior to those of resin-based materials and dental amalgam. These include chemical adhesion to mineralized dental tissues and biological sealing of the cavity interface. (8) CentionN, is a new basic filling alkasite material. It has advantages like being cost-effective, fluoride releasing, quick and easy to use without complicated equipment and that offers both strength and good aesthetics. (9) The purpose of this study was to compare the compressive strengths of four direct post enododontic restorations.