SavedAdd your journal

Journals / European Annals of Dental Sciences / 2008 / Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1

In Vitro Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Roots Filled With a Bonded Filling Material or Different Types of Fiber Posts

Bağlama özelliği olan bir kanal dolgu materyali ile veya farklı fiber post tipleri ile restore edilen endodontik tedavili köklerin kırılma dirençlerinin in vitro incelenmesi

Burak SAĞSEN
Hüseyin ERTAŞ
Gürbulak Ayşegül GÜLERYÜZ
Özgür ER
Yağcı Filiz TESAR
Gülşen AKDOĞAN
Pages
11–16
Publication Date
2008-02-01
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)

The difference between Group 1 and 4 P

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of roots filled with a bonded material or fiber posts. 40 freshly extracted human maxillary canine teeth were selected and divided into fourgroups.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The 10 roots in Group 1 were filled withResilon and Epiphany sealer .
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The difference between Group 1 and 4 P
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:K›r›lma direnci · Epiphany · fiber postlar

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the fracture resistance of roots filled with a bonded material or fiber posts. 40 freshly extracted human maxillary canine teeth were selected and divided into fourgroups. The 10 roots in Group 1 were filled withResilon and Epiphany sealer . The 10 roots inGroup 2 were filled with AH Plus and gutta-perchaand then quartz-fiber posts were placed. The 10roots in Group 3 were filled with AH Plus andgutta-percha and then carbon-fiber posts werecemented. The 10 roots in Group 4 were filled withAH Plus and gutta-percha. Tests for fracturestrength were performed using a Universal Testmachine. The difference between Group 1 and 4 P

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı fiber postlar ve kökkanal duvarlarına bağlanma özelliği olan bir kökkanal dolgu materyali ile doldurulmuş köklerin k›r›lma direncini karş›laşt›rmakt›r. Bu çal›şma için yeni çekilmiş 40 adet maksiller kanin diş seçildi ve 4 gruba ayr›ld›. Grup 1’de 10 adet kanal Resilon ve Epiphany pat› ile dolduruldu. Grup 2’de 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu ve quartz-fiber postlar simante edildi. Grup 3’te 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu ve karbon fiber postlar simante edildi. Grup 4’te 10 adet kanal AH Plus ve gütta perka ile dolduruldu. K›r›lma direnci testleri bir Universal test cihaz› ile yap›ld›. Grup 1 ve 4 P

🔖

Cite This Article

SAĞSEN, B., ERTAŞ, H., GÜLERYÜZ, G. A., ER, Ö., TESAR, Y. F., AKDOĞAN, G. (2008). In Vitro Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Roots Filled With a Bonded Filling Material or Different Types of Fiber Posts. European Annals of Dental Sciences, Cilt: 35 Sayı: 1, 11–16. https://ajindex.com/articles/757526

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Assif D, Gorfil C. Biomechanical considera- tions in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1994; 71: 565-7. Gutmann JL. The dentin-root complex: anatomic and biologic considerations in restoring endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1992; 67: 458-67.
  2. Reeh ES, Douglas WH, Messer HH. Stiffness of endodontically treated teeth related to restoration technique. J Dent Res 1989; 68: 1540-4.
  3. Wagnild G, Mueller K. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. In: Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathways of the Pulp, 9th Ed. St Louis, USA: CV Mosby, 2006; 786-821.
  4. Jagadish S, Yogesh B. Fracture resistance of teeth with class II silver amalgams, posterior com- posites and glass cermet restorations. Oper Dent 1990; 15: 42-7.
  5. Fissore B, Nicholls JI, Youdelis RA. Load fatigue of teeth restored by a dentine bonding agent and a posterior composite resin. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 80- 5. Johnson ME, Stewart GP, Nielsen CJ, Hatton JF. Evaluation of root reinforcement of endodonti- cally treated teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000; 90: 360-4
  6. Teixeira FB, Teixeira ECN, Thompson JY, Leinfelder KF, Trope M. Dentinal bonding reaches the root canal system. J Esth Rest Dent 2004; 16: 348-54.
  7. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003; 195: 43-8. Robbins JW. Guidelines for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990; 120: 558-66. Turner CH. The utilization to carry post- retained crowns. J Oral Rehabil 1982; 9: 193-202.
  8. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Endodontically treated teeth as abutments. J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53: 631-6.
  9. Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: an in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2001; 29: 427-33.
  10. Guzy GE, Nicholls JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and with- out endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979; 42: 39-44.
  11. Kane JJ, Burgess JO. Modification of the resistance form of amalgam coronal radicular restorations. J Prosthet Dent 1991; 65: 470-4.
  12. Fernandez AS, Shetty S, Couthinho I. Factors determining post selection: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003; 6: 556-62. Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodonti- cally treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 2002; 46: 367-84.
  13. King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evalu- ation of a prototype CFRC prefabricated post deve- loped for