4.5 Article

EFFECT OF LUTING AGENTS ON THE TENSILE BOND STRENGTH OF GLASS FIBER POSTS: AN IN VITRO STUDY

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROSTHETIC DENTISTRY
卷 110, 期 3, 页码 216-222

出版社

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60360-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. College of Dentistry Research Center at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
  2. Deanship of Scientific Research at King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Statement of problem. Fiber posts can fail because of loss of retention; and it is unknown which luting agent provides the highest bond strength. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to investigate the tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts luted to premolar teeth with 6 resin composite luting agents. Material and methods. Ninety-six single-rooted extracted human mandibular premolars were sectioned 2 mm coronal to the most incisal point of the cementoenamel junction. Root canals were instrumented and obturated with laterally condensed gutta percha and root canal sealer (AH26). Gutta percha was removed from the canals to a depth of 8 mm and diameter post spaces with a 1.5 mm were prepared. The specimens were divided into the following 6 groups according to the luting agent used (n=16): Group V, Variolink II; Group A, RelyX ARC; Group N, Multilink N; Group U, RelyX Unicem; Group P, ParaCore; Group F, MultiCore Flow. Each specimen was secured in a universal testing machine and a separating load was applied at a rate of 0.5 mm/min. The forces required to dislodge the posts were recorded. A 1-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was applied to the mean retentive strengths of various cement materials (alpha=.05). Results. Significant differences were recorded among the 6 cement types (P<.001). Three materials provided statistically equivalent mean bond strengths (RelyX Unicem, Paracore, and MultiCore Flow) that were significantly greater than for the other 3 materials. Conclusions. Fiber posts luted with RelyX Unicem, Paracore, and MultiCore Flow demonstrated significantly higher bond strengths.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据