Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제38권4호
  • /
  • Pages.215-221
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Retentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study

  • Memarpour, Mahtab (Oral and Dental Health Care Research Center, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Shafiei, Fereshteh (Oral and Dental Health Care Research Center, Department of Operative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences) ;
  • Abbaszadeh, Maryam (Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences)
  • 투고 : 2013.05.19
  • 심사 : 2013.07.16
  • 발행 : 2013.11.29
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: To determine the retentive strength and failure mode of undercut composite post, glass fiber post and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable composite resin and resin-cement. Materials and Methods: Coronal parts of 120 primary canine teeth were sectioned and specimens were treated endodontically. The teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 20). Prepared root canals received intracanal retainers with a short composite post, undercut composite post, glass fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement, and polyethylene fiber post luted with flowable resin or resin-cement. After crown reconstruction, samples were tested for retentive strength and failure mode. Statistical analysis was done with one-way ANOVA and Tukey tests (p < 0.05). Results: There were statistically significant differences between groups (p = 0.001). Mean bond strength in the undercut group was significantly greater than in the short composite post (p = 0.030), and the glass fiber post (p = 0.001) and the polyethylene fiber post group luted with resin-cement (p = 0.008). However, the differences between the undercut group and the groups with flowable composite as the luting agent were not significant (p = 0.068, p = 0.557). Adhesive failure was more frequent in the fiber post groups. Conclusions: Although the composite post with undercutting showed the greatest resistance to dislodgement, fiber posts cemented with flowable composite resin provided acceptable results in terms of retentive strength and fracture mode.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Holan G, Rahme MA, Ram D. Parents' attitude toward their children's appearance in the case of esthetic defects of the anterior primary teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009;34:141-145. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.34.2.910037663v7pm6vg
  2. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth. Pediatr Dent 2002;24:511-516.
  3. Kupietzky A, Waggoner WE, Galea J. Long-term photographic and radiographic assessment of bonded resin composite strip crowns for primary incisors: results after 3 years. Pediatr Dent 2005;27:221-225.
  4. Wanderley MT, Ferreira SL, Rodrigues CR, Rodrigues Filho LE. Primary anterior tooth restoration using posts with macroretentive elements. Quintessence Int 1999; 30:432-436.
  5. Mortada A, King NM. A simplified technique for the restoration of severely mutilated primary anterior teeth. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2004;28:187-192. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.28.3.2554xv412644ru13
  6. Grewal N, Seth R. Comparative in vivo evaluation of restoring severely mutilated primary anterior teeth with biological post and crown preparation and reinforced composite restoration. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Den 2008;26:141-148. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.44028
  7. Pinheiro SL, Bönecker MJ, Duarte DA, Imparato JC, Oda M. Bond strength analysis of intracanal posts used in anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2006;31:32-34.
  8. Judd PL, Kenny DJ, Johnston DH, Yacobi R. Composite resin short-post technique for primary anterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 1990;120:553-555. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.1990.0071
  9. Mendes FM, De Benedetto MS, del Conte Zardetto CG, Wanderley MT, Correa MS. Resin composite restoration in primary anterior teeth using short-post technique and strip crowns: a case report. Quintessence Int 2004; 35:689-692.
  10. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiberreinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 107:e60-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.051
  11. Memarpour M, Shafiei F. Restoration of primary anterior teeth using intracanal polyethylene fibers and composite: an in vivo study. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:85-91.
  12. Island G, White GE. Polyethylene ribbon fibers: a new alternative for restoring badly destroyed primary incisors. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2005;29:151-156. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.29.2.0221wmj44wg66220
  13. Jain M, Singla S, Bhushan B, Kumar S, Bhushan A. Esthetic rehabilitation of anterior primary teeth using polyethylene fiber with two different approaches. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29:327-332. https://doi.org/10.4103/0970-4388.86381
  14. Motisuki C, Santos-Pinto L, Giro EM. Restoration of severely decayed primary incisors using indirect composite resin restoration technique. Int J Paediatr Dent 2005;15:282-286. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00645.x
  15. Subramaniam P, Babu KL, Sunny R. Glass fiber reinforced composite resin as an intracanal post-a clinical study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2008;32:207-210. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.32.3.700t77h520473149
  16. Metha D, Gulati A, Basappa N, Raju OS. Esthetic rehabilitation of severely decayed primary incisors using glass fiber reinforced composite: a case report. J Dent Child (Chic) 2012;79:22-25.
  17. Gujjar KR, Indushekar KR. Comparison of the retentive strength of 3 different posts in restoring badly broken primary maxillary incisors. J Dent Child (Chic) 2010;77: 17-24.
  18. Pithan S, Vieira Rde S, Chain MC. Tensile bond strength of intracanal posts in primary anterior teeth: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2002;27:35-39.
  19. Deliperi S, Bardwell DN. Reconstruction of nonvital teeth using direct fiber-reinforced composite resin: a pilot clinical study. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:71-78.
  20. Karbhari VM, Wang Q. Influence of triaxial braid denier on ribbon-based fiber reinforced dental composites. Dent Mater 2007;23:969-976. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.08.004
  21. Qualtrough AJ, Mannocci F. Tooth-colored post systems: a review. Oper Dent 2003;28:86-91.
  22. El-Mowafy O, El-Badrawy W, Eltanty A, Abbasi K, Habib N. Gingival microleakage of Class II resin composite restorations with fiber inserts. Oper Dent 2007;32:298-305. https://doi.org/10.2341/06-86
  23. Kececi AD, Ureyen Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro push-out bond strengths of four fiber-reinforced composite post systems and 2 luting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:121-128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.07.011
  24. Braga RR, Cesar PF, Gonzaga CC. Mechanical properties of resin cements with different activation modes. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:257-262. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2002.00821.x
  25. Bonfante G, Kaizer OB, Pegoraro LF, do Valle AL. Tensile bond strength of glass fiber posts luted with different cements. Braz Oral Res 2007;21:159-164. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242007000200011
  26. Sen D, Poyrazoglu E, Tuncelli B. The retentive effects of pre-fabricated posts by luting cements. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31:585-589. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01276.x
  27. Kim SR, Yum J, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of push-out bond strength of post according to cement application methods. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010; 35:479-485. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.6.479
  28. Kim JH, Park SH, Park JW, Jung IY. Influence of post types and sizes on fracture resistance in the immature tooth model. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2010;35:257-266. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.4.257
  29. Ozel E, Soyman M. Effect of fiber nets, application techniques and flowable composites on microleakage and the effect of fiber nets on polymerization shrinkage in class II MOD cavities. Oper Dent 2009;34:174-180. https://doi.org/10.2341/08-57
  30. Beznos C. Microleakage at the cervical margin of composite Class II cavities with different restorative techniques. Oper Dent 2001;26:60-69.
  31. Unterbrink GL, Liebenberg WH. Flowable resin composites as 'filled adhesives': literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30: 249-257.
  32. Kim MH, Kim HJ, Cho YG. Effect of curing methods of resin cements on bond strength and adhesive interface of post. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2009;34:103-112. https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2009.34.2.103
  33. Kimmel SS. Restoration and reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth with a polyethylene ribbon and prefabricated fiberglass post. Gen Dent 2000;48: 700-706.
  34. Mannocci F, Innocenti M, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Confocal and scanning electron microscopic study of teeth restored with fiber posts, metal posts, and composite resins. J Endod 1999;25:789-794. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80298-2
  35. Deliperi S. Direct fiber-reinforced composite restoration in an endodontically-treated molar: a three-year case report. Oper Dent 2008;33:209-214. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-99
  36. Braga NM, Paulino SM, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Vansan LP. Removal resistance of glass-fiber and metallic cast posts with different lengths. J Oral Sci 2006;48:15-20. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.48.15

피인용 문헌

  1. Evaluation of the effect of different post materials and adhesive systems on the bonding strength of short-post technique for primary teeth pp.09607439, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12347
  2. Effect of ultrasonic tip designs on intraradicular post removal vol.39, pp.4, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2014.39.4.265
  3. Coronal Microleakage of Teeth Restored with Cast Posts and Cores Cemented with Four Different Luting Agents after Thermocycling pp.1059941X, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12788