4.6 Article

Push-Out Bond Strength of Endodontic Posts Cemented to Extracted Teeth: An In-Vitro Evaluation

期刊

MATERIALS
卷 15, 期 19, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ma15196792

关键词

endodontic posts; dowel; fiber posts; prefabricated posts; titanium posts

资金

  1. College of Dentistry Research Center [FR 0594]
  2. King Saud University, Riyadh, KSA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the bond strength between prefabricated fiber and metal posts and natural dentin. The results showed that metal posts had slightly higher retention compared to fiber posts, and an increase in post size improved retention.
(1) Background: An ideal bond strength between endodontic posts and root canal dentin is essential for optimal retention and good prognosis. This study aimed to evaluate the push-out bond strength (PBS) of prefabricated fiber and metal posts, luted with resin cement to natural dentin. (2) Methods: Extracted premolars with similar root dimensions were assigned into two groups of 30 each for the metal and fiber posts. Teeth were mounted in acrylic blocks exposing 2 mm of the coronal root. Teeth were subjected to endodontic treatment and post-space preparations. Two groups were further subdivided into three sub-groups (n = 10) according to the size of the posts (# 4, 5 and 6). Posts were cemented with resin cement. Specimens were sectioned into 4 mm slices and subjected to the PBS test. (3) Results: The mean PBS was similar for the metal and fiber posts bonded with resin cement, showing a statistically significant result. An increase in post size increased the bond strength initially, but a further increase in size did not show any marked difference. A total of 71.66% of tested specimens failed with the adhesive failure mode. (4) Conclusions: Metal posts showed slightly higher retention compared to the fiber posts, although the p-value was similar for both types. An increase in the size of posts showed increased retention. The most common mode of failure was adhesive failure between cement and dentin.

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

4.6
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