An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems

Sirimai, Sonthi; Riis, Douglas N.; Morgano, Steven M.

doi:10.1016/s0022-3913(99)70267-2

Cited by 233 publications

(232 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

183

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, a recent literature review demonstrated conflicting results, revealing a slight tendency towards higher fracture resistance of metal posts compared to FRC posts 22) . In several other studies, FRC posts were also shown to have lower fracture strength than metal posts 5,23,24) . According to Rosentritt et al 25) , increasing the elasticity of the post led to reduced fracture strength of the whole system.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques

Kıvanç¹,

Alaçam²,

Görgül³

2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different post systems. Forty-eight maxillary premolars were endodontically treated and randomly assigned to four groups for postcore restoration. The first three test groups were restored with polyethylene woven fiber posts, custom-made glass fiber-reinforced composite posts, and titanium posts respectively. In the control Group 4, standardized cavities (3.5×1.5 mm) were prepared in the palatal canal entrance and filled with a resin composite. All the specimens were then restored with a resin composite crown seated on the post. Load was applied with a stainless steel ball (1 mm/min), and the failure modes of all specimens were evaluated. There were no significant differences in fracture resistance and failure mode among the different restorative materials (p>0.05). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it was concluded that the presence and type of post did not influence the fracture load and failure mode of maxillary premolar teeth with one remaining cavity wall.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques

Kıvanç¹,

Alaçam²,

Görgül³

2010

Dent. Mater. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The preference for and popularity of FRC posts can be chiefly ascribed to an elastic modulus that is closer to that of dentin 3) . Other advantages of FRC posts include enabling cementation procedures to be carried out without friction with root canal walls [1][2][3] and a reduced risk of vertical root fractures 2,4,5) . On the latter advantage, several in vitro studies have shown that FRC posts distributed occlusal stresses more evenly in the root dentin, thereby resulting in fewer and more favorable root fractures, which were often reparable [6][7][8] .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of micro push-out bond strengths of two fiber posts luted using simplified adhesive approaches

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

By means of a micro push-out test, this study compared the bond strengths of two types of fiber-reinforced posts cemented with luting cements based on two currently available adhesive approaches as well as evaluated their failure modes. Sixty extracted single-rooted human maxillary central incisor and canine teeth were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction, and the roots were endodontically treated. Following standardized post space preparation, the roots were divided into two fiber post groups and then further into three subgroups of 10 specimens each according to the luting cements. A push-out test was performed to measure regional bond strengths, and the fracture modes were evaluated using a stereomicroscope. At the root section, there were no statistically significant differences (p>0.05) in push-out bond strength among the tested luting cements. Nevertheless, the push-out bond strength values of glass fiberreinforced posts were higher than those of carbon fiber-reinforced posts, irrespective of the adhesive approach used. On failure mode, the predominant failure mode was adhesive failure between dentin and the luting cement.

show abstract

“…These products are meant to improve the mechanical properties of materials and provide extended applications for resin composites. [23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30] They have a wide range of applications, including orthodontic treatment, 31 such as splints for periodontally-involved teeth, [32][33] reinforcement for resin composites, 34 the fabrication of non-metallic endodontic posts, [35][36][37][38][39] reinforcement of denture bases [40][41][42][43][44] and reinforcement for non-metallic crowns and fixed partial dentures. [25][26][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] It has been reported that the embedding of fiber inserts into composites results in strengthening the restoration, particularly large ones, with improved fracture resistance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gingival Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

El‐Mowafy

El-Badrawy²,

Eltanty³

et al. 2007

Operative Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fiber inserts incorporated at the gingival floor of Class II composite restorations resulted in a significant reduction of microleakage scores as compared to restorations made without inserts. This may lead to a reduced incidence of recurrent caries. SUMMARYPurpose: This investigation evaluated the effect of glass and polyethylene fiber inserts on the microleakage of Class II composite restorations with gingival margins on root surfaces. Methods: Fifty-four intact molars were sterilized with Gamma irradiation and mounted in acrylic bases. Class II slot cavities were made on both proximal sides of each tooth (3 mm wide, 1.5 mm deep) with the gingival margin on the root surface. The teeth were divided into nine groups, according to the technique of restoration and type of bonding agent. Filtek P-60 (3M/ESPE) was used to restore all cavities. Two types of fiber inserts were used: glass fiber (Ever Stick, StickTech) and polyethylene (Ribbond-THM), with three bonding agents being employed: Scotch Bond Multipurpose (3M/ESPE), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray) and Xeno IV (Dentsply). In the experimental groups, 3 mm long fiber inserts were inserted into restorations at the gingival seat. The control groups had no fiber inserts. The restorations were made incrementally and cured with LED light (UltraLume5, Ultradent). The restored teeth were stored in water for two weeks, then thermocycled for 3,000 cycles (5°C and 55°C). The tooth surfaces were sealed with nail polish, except at the restoration margins. The teeth were immersed in 2% procion red dye solution, sectioned and dye penetration was assessed to determine the extent of microleakage

show abstract

An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence of vertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-core systems

Cited by 233 publications

References 14 publications

Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques

Fracture resistance of premolars with one remaining cavity wall restored using different techniques

Comparison of micro push-out bond strengths of two fiber posts luted using simplified adhesive approaches

Gingival Microleakage of Class II Resin Composite Restorations with Fiber Inserts

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About