3.8 Article

Micro-computed tomography analysis of gap and void formation in different prefabricated fiber post cementation materials and techniques

期刊

SAUDI DENTAL JOURNAL
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 236-241

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2019.01.001

关键词

Fiber post; Endodontic treated teeth; Resin cement; Micro-computed tomography

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: The study was built around the objective of determining the variances in the gap and void formation around cemented prefabricated fiber posts with two different cementation materials and techniques with micro-computed tomography (mu CT). Methods: Standardized acrylic resin roots (N = 40) with prefabricated fiber posts (RelyX (TM) Fiber Post 3D) were split into four sets (n = 10) based on many types of cementation materials and techniques. In the first group, resin cement (RelyX (TM) Unicem) was inserted to the canals via root canal tips. In the second group, the same cement was injected, and a microbrush was used to distribute the cement inside the canal. In the third group, dual polymerizing resin cement (Multi-Core (R) Flow) was injected into the canals by using root canal tips. In the fourth group, the same cement was injected, and a microbrush was used to distribute the cement inside the canal. The gap and void formation in the cement and the root canals was evaluated with mu CT. IBM SPSS Statistics was used to perform the statistical evaluation, then the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test of nor-mality and Kruskal-Wallis H test to compare these variables with respect to the all groups significant difference (a = 0.05). Results: The study outlined no difference of significance when evaluating the gap and void formation within the experimental groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: There was a certain amount of void and gap formation inside all of the tested specimens. However, no significant variances were found. (C) 2019 The Authors. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. on behalf of King Saud University.

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

3.8
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