1 |
Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiberreinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:151-7.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
2 |
Torbjorner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:439-44.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
3 |
Galen WW, Mueller KI. Restoration of the Endodontically Treated Tooth. In Cohen S, Burns RC, editors: Pathways of the Pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis; Mosby; 2002. p. 765-96.
|
4 |
Martlnez-Insua A, da Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restored with a cast post and core or carbon-fiber post with a composite core. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:527-32.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
5 |
Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Collard EW, Pollack MH. Analysis of stress distribution by endodontic posts. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1972;33:952-60.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
6 |
Chan RW, Bryant RW. Post-core foundations for endodontically treated posterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1982;48:401-6.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
7 |
Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:103-16.
|
8 |
Lovdahl PE, Nicholls JI. Pin-retained amalgam cores vs. castgold dowel-cores. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:507-14.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
9 |
Glassman GD, Serota KS. Endoesthetics. Rehabilitation of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 1998;42:799-811, xii.
|
10 |
Shillingburg HT, Hobo S, Whitsett LD, Jacobi R, Brackett SE, editors. Preparations for extensively damaged teeth. In: Fundamentals of fixed prosthodontics. 3rd ed. Chicago; Quintessence; 1997. p. 181-209.
|
11 |
Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:28-35.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
12 |
Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
13 |
Ottl P, Hahn L, Lauer HCh, Fay M. Fracture characteristics of carbon fibre, ceramic and non-palladium endodontic post systems at monotonously increasing loads. J Oral Rehabil 2002;29:175-83.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
14 |
Anusavice KJ. Mechanical Properties of Dental Materials (Chapter 4). In: Phillips' Science of Dental Materials. 10th ed. Philadelphia; WB Saunders Co.; 1996. p. 49-74.
|
15 |
Wadhwani KK, Shrivastava S, Nigam P. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of various post systems: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2003;6:56-61.
|
16 |
Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:5-9.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
17 |
Dean JP, Jeansonne BG, Sarkar N. In vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber post. J Endod 1998;24:807-10.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
18 |
Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of restored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol 1985;1:108-11.
DOI
|
19 |
Robbins JW. Restoration of the endodontically treated tooth. Dent Clin North Am 2002;46:367-84.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
20 |
Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent 2003;89:360-7.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
21 |
Rosentritt M, Furer C, Behr M, Lang R, Handel G. Comparison of in vitro fracture strength of metallic and tooth-coloured posts and cores. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27:595-601.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
22 |
Sirimai S, Riis DN, Morgano SM. An in vitro study of the fracture resistance and the incidence ofvertical root fracture of pulpless teeth restored with six post-and-coresystems. J Prosthet Dent 1999;81:262-9.
DOI
ScienceOn
|
23 |
Kantor ME, Pines MS. A comparative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1977;38:405-12.
DOI
ScienceOn
|