Journal
Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry
ISSN: 1989-5488
Titre abrégé: J Clin Exp Dent
Pays: Spain
ID NLM: 101603132
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2019
Nov 2019
Historique:
received:
27
08
2019
accepted:
07
10
2019
entrez:
9
11
2019
pubmed:
9
11
2019
medline:
9
11
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The purpose of this A freshly extracted intact mandibular human canine (length 25 mm) was selected and endodontically treated. An incisal reduction of 4 mm with no ferrule preparation was performed and a post space of 12 mm was created. By using polyvinyl siloxane duplication material and autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin, ten resin teeth analogs (control group) were obtained. A second set of ten resin teeth analogs (group 1) was created by preparing on the original natural tooth a 360o ferrule design of 1 mm in height and by using the same procedural technique. The canine was further reduced by an additional 1 mm, resulting in a ferrule of 2 mm in height, measured from the initial incisal reduction, thus a third set of ten resin teeth analogs (group 2) was created. For every tooth analog in all groups a dome-shaped metal coping was cast and luted with a glass ionomer cement. All specimens were subjected to tensile load testing until decementation occurred. The specimens in the control group exhibited a mean failure load of 87.21 ± 18.26 N, while the 1 mm ferrule group recorded a higher mean failure load of 125.43 ± 8.79 N and the 2 mm ferrule group recorded the highest mean failure load of 146.12 ± 23.38 N. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences (F= 28.04, The metal copings with a 2 mm ferrule design exhibited the highest retention values, followed by the 1 mm ferrule and the no ferrule design, with the differences among them being statistically significant.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this
MATERIAL AND METHODS
METHODS
A freshly extracted intact mandibular human canine (length 25 mm) was selected and endodontically treated. An incisal reduction of 4 mm with no ferrule preparation was performed and a post space of 12 mm was created. By using polyvinyl siloxane duplication material and autopolymerizing polymethylmethacrylate resin, ten resin teeth analogs (control group) were obtained. A second set of ten resin teeth analogs (group 1) was created by preparing on the original natural tooth a 360o ferrule design of 1 mm in height and by using the same procedural technique. The canine was further reduced by an additional 1 mm, resulting in a ferrule of 2 mm in height, measured from the initial incisal reduction, thus a third set of ten resin teeth analogs (group 2) was created. For every tooth analog in all groups a dome-shaped metal coping was cast and luted with a glass ionomer cement. All specimens were subjected to tensile load testing until decementation occurred.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The specimens in the control group exhibited a mean failure load of 87.21 ± 18.26 N, while the 1 mm ferrule group recorded a higher mean failure load of 125.43 ± 8.79 N and the 2 mm ferrule group recorded the highest mean failure load of 146.12 ± 23.38 N. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences (F= 28.04,
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The metal copings with a 2 mm ferrule design exhibited the highest retention values, followed by the 1 mm ferrule and the no ferrule design, with the differences among them being statistically significant.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31700574
doi: 10.4317/jced.56228
pii: 56228
pmc: PMC6825728
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
e1006-e1011Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2019 Medicina Oral S.L.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Conflict of interest statement:The authors have declared that no conflict of interest exist.
Références
J Dent Res. 2000 Jul;79(7):1519-24
pubmed: 11005738
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Dec;112(6):1356-63
pubmed: 25277034
J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Dec;66(6):784-9
pubmed: 1805030
J Prosthodont. 2019 Jan;28(1):22-29
pubmed: 29380448
J Prosthet Dent. 1969 May;21(5):513-22
pubmed: 4888569
J Prosthet Dent. 1984 May;51(5):593-8
pubmed: 6374114
Dent Clin North Am. 1969 Oct;13(4):871-81
pubmed: 4897530
J Prosthet Dent. 1976 Jun;35(6):615-9
pubmed: 1066472
J Am Dent Assoc. 2004 Jun;135(6):739-46; quiz 795-6
pubmed: 15270156
Br Dent J. 1983 Jul 9;155(1):9-13
pubmed: 6351880
Tex Dent J. 1965 Sep;83:4-8
pubmed: 14319044
J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Oct;60(4):459-62
pubmed: 3054067
Br Dent J. 1983 Jul 23;155(2):50-4
pubmed: 6351881
J Dent Res. 1993 Jun;72(6):1001-4
pubmed: 8496472
J Prosthet Dent. 1978 Dec;40(6):610-3
pubmed: 281516
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997 Jun;25(3):223-7
pubmed: 9192151
J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Jun;49(6):749-56
pubmed: 6348256
J Prosthet Dent. 1994 Nov;72(5):543-50
pubmed: 7844759
Br Dent J. 2010 Jul 10;209(1):25-33
pubmed: 20616834
J Prosthodont. 2019 Oct;28(8):876-882
pubmed: 29430787
J Dent. 2010 Nov;38(11):916-20
pubmed: 20713117
Int J Prosthodont. 2012 Jan-Feb;25(1):63-5
pubmed: 22259799
J Prosthet Dent. 2017 Apr;117(4):517-523
pubmed: 27881331
J Prosthodont Res. 2018 Oct;62(4):407-415
pubmed: 29891420
J Endod. 2018 Feb;44(2):212-219
pubmed: 29229457
Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1990 Feb;18(1):42-5
pubmed: 2404655
Acta Odontol Scand. 1992 Aug;50(4):201-10
pubmed: 1514394
J Prosthet Dent. 1998 Jan;79(1):31-6
pubmed: 9474538
J Prosthet Dent. 1969 Oct;22(4):415-24
pubmed: 4898314
Int J Prosthodont. 1997 Jul-Aug;10(4):355-65
pubmed: 9484046