Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations

Table 2 Marginal leakage on teeth treated with polyethylene fibre posts (n = 31) and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts (n = 31) and direct resin composite restorations n (%)

Time (mo)		6		12		24		36
Materials		Polyethylene	Zirconia	Polyethylene	Zirconia	Polyethylene	Zirconia	Polyethylene	Zirconia
Marginal leakage	A	28 (90.3)	29 (93.5)	27 (87.1)	27 (87.1)	26 (83.9)	25 (80.6)	26 (83.9)	23 (74.2)
	B	3 (9.7)	2 (6.5)	4 (12.9)	4 (12.9)	5 (16.1)	6 (19.4)	5 (16.1)	8 (25.8)
	C	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)	0 (0)
		NS		NS		NS		NS

A: No discolouration at the interface; B: Slight discolouration at the interface; C: Moderate discolouration at the interface (≥ 1 mm) or recurrent decay at margins, requiring replacement; NS: Not significant.