Aim: To compare between different intraradicular restorative techniques to rehabilitate single rooted badly destructed teeth. Materials and method: Fifty sound maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated, decoronated at M-D cementoenamel-junction and randomly distributed into five equal groups according to the intraradicular rehabilitation technique: group A: Coronal and intraradicular cores using G-aenial flow composite (GC Corporation, Japan), group B : Coronal and intraradicular cores using G-aenial flow composite (GC Corporation, Japan) with GC fiber post (GC Corporation, Japan), group C: Coronal and intraradicular cores using composite (Wave, SDI, Australia) compacted by ultrasonic tip with fiber post (GC Corporation, Japan), group D: Multiple posts (GC Corporation, Japan) together with composite core (Wave, SDI, Australia) and finally group E: Cast post and core which was cemented using resin cement (Rely X U 200, 3M ESPE, USA). Cr-Co copings were fabricated and cemented on all cores. All the specimens were thermocycled for 300 cycles and subjected to a compressive force at a 130º to the long axis of the tooth (Instron 8874; Instron Corp. Canton, Mass), until fracture. Results: The highest mean value was scored in group B (509.48N) followed by group E (422.92N) then group C (418.05N) to reach group D (321.85N). The lowest score was figured in group A (291.89N). In accordance with the fracture resistance mean results, group B also showed the maximum fracture resistance (946.81N) whereas group A showed the minimum fracture resistance mean (109.69N). P values in between different groups scored insignificant results. Moreover p values between every group (A, B, C or D) in comparison with the control Group E showed insignificant results (p>0.05). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that any of the new techniques can be used as a substitute for cast post and core. Keywords: Fiber Post, Intraradicular Rehabilitation, Compromised roots, Cast Post and core.