m+Medelevator.RU
← Поиск публикаций
Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024

Evaluation of Retentive Strength of 50 Endodontically-Treated Single-Rooted Mandibular Second Premolars Restored with Cast Post Cores Using 5 Common Luting (Cement) Agents.

СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

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.

Singh Monika, Singh Soundarya, Kumar Lakshya, Mattoo Khurshid A, Khalid Imran, Kota Mohammad Zahir, Udeabor Samuel Ebele, Baig Fawaz Abdul Hamid, Ishfaq Mohammad, Ibrahim Mohammed, Basheer Sulphi Abdul

Аннотация

BACKGROUND A luting agent is a dental cement used to secure a dental restoration. This study aimed to evaluate retentive strength of 50 endodontically-treated single-rooted mandibular second premolars (extracted) restored using 5 common luting (cement) agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty single-rooted mandibular second premolars with adequate root length and uniform size/shape were decoronated. After completing endodontic biomechanical preparation and obturation, root canals of all specimens were prepared to receive a cast post core. Depending upon cementation type, CPC specimens were divided in 5 groups (10 each) (Gp): Zinc phosphate (Gp ZP), polycarboxylate (Gp PC), glass ionomer (Gp GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (Gp RGI), and resin cement (Gp RC). Retentive strength was determined using the adhesive failure pull-out test. Mean/standard deviations were calculated for tensile forces (in kilograms) and differences were determined using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparison was performed using the t test. A P value of ≤0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS The order of mean tensile strength from higher to lower was Gp RC (21.46) >Gp RGI (18.17) >Gp GI (16.07) >Gp ZP (15.33) >Gp PC (13.63). Differences in retentive strengths between the cements were significant (P≤0.05). Multiple-group comparisons showed that except for Gp ZP and Gp GI, all groups differed significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS All investigated cements provided optimal retentive strengths, with wide differences between them. Resin cements should be used when CPC removal is not anticipated, while polycarboxylate or zinc phosphate should be used if CPC removal is anticipated.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

ИП Урсолов Владлен Сергеевич

ИНН 500118482352 · ОГРНИП 314500117700049

Реквизиты и контакты