4.6 Review

Laboratory assessment of the retentive potential of adhesive posts: A review

期刊

JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY
卷 35, 期 11, 页码 827-835

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2007.07.009

关键词

adhesion; retention; post; microtensile; push-out; pull-out; laboratory

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This review aimed at summarizing the laboratory evidence collected on the retentive ability of adhesive posts since their introduction in dentistry. Data: Data were searched in articles published or in press in peer-review journals listed in MEDLINE. Sources: Papers were retrieved through PubMed. Study selection: To collect the evidence of interest, the following search terms were used: bond* AND fiber post AND in vitro; lut* AND fiber post AND in vitro; push-out AND fiber post; pull-out AND fiber post; microtensile AND fiber post. Related Links were also considered and articles cited in the initially retrieved papers were included if relevant. No time limit was given to the query. Conclusions: Seventy relevant papers were reviewed. The retentive ability of adhesive posts has been tested with the microtensile technique, post-pull-out and push-out tests. if small-sized specimens are obtained, such as in microtensile and thin-slice push-out, stress uniformity is favoured, local differences in bonding conditions can be discerned, and the number of teeth needed for the test can be reduced. Although adhesion to intraradicular dentin is more challenging to achieve than bonding to crown tissues, the post-retention achieved with current luting systems and techniques is adequate to ensure the clinical success of adhesive post-retained restorations. To enhance the bond at the post-core and post-cement interfaces, several chemical pre-treatments of the post-surface have been tested with positive results. Self-adhesive resin cements, recently proposed to simplify the post-luting procedure, should be investigated further with regard to durability. (C) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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