SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Cumhuriyet Dental Journal / 2014 / Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4

Farklı post materyallerinin radyoopasitelerinin değerlendirilmesi

Evaluation of the radiopacity of various post materials

Mehmet Emin KAVAL
Hakan AKIN
Plin GÜNERİ
Pages
372–379
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Results: The highest opacity was observed for Cosmopost (7.37±0.17 mmAl), which wasfollowed by Unicore (4.3±0.26 mmAl), D.T.Light-Post (2.11±0.1 mmAl), and FRC Postec(1.72±0.24 mmAl), respectively (p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of four different types of postmaterials by using a digital image analysis method.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Eight specimens from each post type of 2 mm in thickness were obtained using a diamondblade mounted on a cutting machine.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Results: The highest opacity was observed for Cosmopost (7.37±0.17 mmAl), which wasfollowed by Unicore (4.3±0.26 mmAl), D.T.Light-Post (2.11±0.1 mmAl), and FRC Postec(1.72±0.24 mmAl), respectively (p
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the radiopacity of four different types of postmaterials by using a digital image analysis method. Materials and Methods: Various brands of four post systems CosmoPost (Ivoclar Vivadent,Leicester, UK), Unicore (Ultradent, Salt Lake City, CA, USA), D.T.Light-Post (Bisco Inc,Schaumburg, IL, USA), FRC Postec (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were used for thestudy. Eight specimens from each post type of 2 mm in thickness were obtained using a diamondblade mounted on a cutting machine. Eight digital radiographs of the specimens and 99% purealuminium (Al) step wedge (SW) were acquired under standard exposure conditions. The meangray values of each specimen and Al-SW were measured using a digital imaging software. Datawere analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests (p=0.05). Results: The highest opacity was observed for Cosmopost (7.37±0.17 mmAl), which wasfollowed by Unicore (4.3±0.26 mmAl), D.T.Light-Post (2.11±0.1 mmAl), and FRC Postec(1.72±0.24 mmAl), respectively (p

Özet

Amaç: Dört farklı post materyalinin radyoopasitelerinin karşılaştırılmalı olarakdeğerlendirilmesidir.Gereç ve Yöntem: Farklı üreticilere (CosmoPost (Ivoclar Vivadent, Leicester, İngiltere), Unicore(Ultradent, Salt Lake City, CA, ABD), D.T.Light-Post (Bisco Inc, Schaumburg, IL ABD), FRC PostecPost (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) ait postlardan, düşük hızda dönen elmas separeyardımıyla 2 mm kalınlığında sekizer tane örnek elde edildi. Örnekler dörderli gruplar halinde%99 saflıkta alüminyum step wedge ile birlikte fosfor plak üzerinde konumlandırıldı ve standartdijital radyografiler alındı. TIFF formatında kaydedilen görüntüler, görüntü analiz programıyladeğerlendirildi ve her örneğin ortalama grilik değerleri tespit edildi. Veriler tek yönlü varyansanalizi ve Tukey çoklu karşılaştırma testleri kullanılarak olarak analiz edildi (p=0,05). Bulgular: En yüksek radyoopasite değeri Cosmopost (7,37±0,17 mm Al) için saptandı. Bumateryali sırasıyla Unicore (4,3±0,26 mmAl), D.T.Light-Post (2,11±0,1 mmAl) ve FRC Postec(1,72±0,24 mmAl) izledi (p

🔖

Cite This Article

KAVAL, M. E., AKIN, H., GÜNERİ, P. (2022). Farklı post materyallerinin radyoopasitelerinin değerlendirilmesi. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, Cilt: 17 - Sayı: 4, 372–379. https://ajindex.com/articles/649398

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J 2011;56:77-83
  2. Sipahi C, Piskin B, Akin GE, Bektas OO, Akin H. Adhesion between glass fiber posts and resin cement: evaluation of bond strength after various pre- treatments. Acta Odontol Scand 2014, doi:10.3109/00016357.2013.8 75586
  3. Nagase DY, de Freitas PM, Morimoto S, Oda M, Vieira GF. Influence of laser irradiation on fiber post retention. Lasers Med Sci 2011;26:377-380
  4. Kremeier K, Fasen L, Klaiber B, Hofmann N. Influence of endodontic post type (glass fiber, quartz fiber or gold) and luting material on push- out bond strength to dentin in vitro. Dent Mater 2008;24:660-666
  5. Balbosh A, Kern M. Effect of surface treatment on retention of glass-fiber endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:218-223
  6. Eğilmez F, Nalbant L. Comparison of the effect of thermal stresses on tooth-colored posts, cores and tooth structures by finite element analysis. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2012;15:118- 129
  7. Eğilmez F, Nalbant L. Sıcak uyaran karşısında zirkonyum ve cam fiber ile güçlendirilmiş kompozit post sistemlerde ve diş dokularında oluşan termal streslerin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2012;15:138-148
  8. Ergun G, Kaya BM, Egilmez F, Cekic Nagas I. Fracture strength of endodontically treated roots restored with zirconia post and different core materials. Cumhuriyet Dent J 2014;17:27-31
  9. Cekic-Nagas I, Sukuroglu E, Canay S. Does the surface treatment affect the bond strength of various fibre-post systems to resin-core materials? J Dent 2011;39:171-179
  10. Al-Omiri MK1, Mahmoud AA, Rayyan MR, Abu-Hammad O. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with post-retained restorations: an overview. J Endod 2010;36:1439- 1449
  11. Yaman BC, Ozer F, Takeichi T, Karabucak B, Koray F, Blatz MB. Effect of thermomechanical aging on bond strength and interface morphology of glass fiber and zirconia posts bonded with a self-etch adhesive and a self- adhesive resin cement to natural teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2014. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.11.008
  12. Guazzato M, Albakry M, Ringer SP, Swain MV. Strength, fracture toughness and microsructure of a selection of allceramic materials. Part II. Zirconiabased dental ceramics. Dent Mater 2004;20:449-456
  13. Özkurt Z, Işeri U, Kazazoğlu E. Zirconia ceramic post systems: a literature review and a case report. Dent Mater J 2010;29:233-245
  14. Bottino MA, Baldissara P, Valandro LF, Galhano GA, Scotti R. Effects of me