Journal of oral science · 2020
Influence of single post, oval, and multi-post restorative techniques and amount of residual tooth substance on fracture strength of endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Spicciarelli Valentina, Marruganti Crystal, Di Matteo Carla, Martignoni Marco, Ounsi Hani, Doldo Tiziana, Ferrari Marco, Grandini Simone
Аннотация
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare the influence of the number of coronal walls and post-endodontic restorations on the mechanical strength of 165 recently extracted endodontically treated maxillary premolars.
METHODS: The teeth were divided into 3 control (no post) and 3 test groups according to the number of residual walls. Each test group was divided into subgroups according to the type of post-endodontic restoration (single, oval, and multi-post techniques). Samples were prepared conforming to the assigned subgroup. A universal loading machine applied a load parallel to the longitudinal axis of the teeth, thus simulating physiological occlusion. ANOVA and the Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparisons (P ≤ 0.05), and Tukey's test for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: For intact teeth, significant differences were found among all 3 subgroups, with single post showing the highest values. For 3 residual walls, oval post resulted in significantly lower values than single and multi-post systems. For 2 residual walls, the multi-post technique showed almost twice the resistance of oval post restorations.
CONCLUSION: In oval canals the use of a single or multi-post technique increased post-and-core resistance even in intact teeth, whereas oval fiber posts showed no improvements. Multi-post design improved fracture resistance mostly in maxillary premolars lacking both marginal ridges.
METHODS: The teeth were divided into 3 control (no post) and 3 test groups according to the number of residual walls. Each test group was divided into subgroups according to the type of post-endodontic restoration (single, oval, and multi-post techniques). Samples were prepared conforming to the assigned subgroup. A universal loading machine applied a load parallel to the longitudinal axis of the teeth, thus simulating physiological occlusion. ANOVA and the Kruskal Wallis test were used for comparisons (P ≤ 0.05), and Tukey's test for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: For intact teeth, significant differences were found among all 3 subgroups, with single post showing the highest values. For 3 residual walls, oval post resulted in significantly lower values than single and multi-post systems. For 2 residual walls, the multi-post technique showed almost twice the resistance of oval post restorations.
CONCLUSION: In oval canals the use of a single or multi-post technique increased post-and-core resistance even in intact teeth, whereas oval fiber posts showed no improvements. Multi-post design improved fracture resistance mostly in maxillary premolars lacking both marginal ridges.