2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2011.11.003
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Factors affecting the cement–post interface

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2

Citation Types

12
97
0
14

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
4
4
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 122 publications
(134 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
12
97
0
14
Order By: Relevance
“…[22][23][24][25][26][27] Post design, dimensions, surface roughness and length all have been shown to affect post fracture resistance and retention. [28][29][30] In particular, regarding the post length, various recommendations have been proposed in the past. Eventually, it was believed that, given at least 4-5 mm of apical seal, the more apical into the canal the post was placed, the higher the retention of the restoration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…[22][23][24][25][26][27] Post design, dimensions, surface roughness and length all have been shown to affect post fracture resistance and retention. [28][29][30] In particular, regarding the post length, various recommendations have been proposed in the past. Eventually, it was believed that, given at least 4-5 mm of apical seal, the more apical into the canal the post was placed, the higher the retention of the restoration.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Silanes are coupling agents that can interact with both organic (resin) and inorganic (glass) phases; however, they have little ability to react with epoxy resin-based posts (4) and also great possibility to undergo hydrolysis, weakening their coupling stability (5). Consequently, studies diverge about the real benefit of silanization in improving post retention (6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11); therefore, other substances have currently been investigated, such as resin adhesives (12), acid solutions (13)(14)(15), and hydrogen peroxide agents (16)(17)(18).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Further, polymerization shrinkage may lead to adhesive failure and intraradicular retainer insertion decreases the amount of cement, increasing the cohesive strength and C-factor. These facts may explain why narrow canals can generate a ratio of 20 to 100, which is considered unfavorable for adhesion [14,18,19] …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%