Fadag Abdulrahman, Negm Maged, Samran Abdulaziz, Samran Ahlam, Ahmed Giraldine, Alqerban Ali, Özcan Mutlu
Department of Endodontics,, Faculty of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, School of Dentistry, Ibb University, Ibb, Yemen, School of Dentistry, Dar Al-Uloom University, Saudi Arabia.
Eur Endod J. 2018 Sep 7;3(3):174-178. doi: 10.14744/eej.2018.70299. eCollection 2018.
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary central incisors with different post systems.
Fifty-six extracted intact maxillary permanent central incisors were used, treated endodontically (except for the control group), and distributed into the following seven test groups (n=8) depending on the post type: UHT (control group: root-filled teeth without endodontic post), ZRP (prefabricated zirconia post), GFP (prefabricated glass fiber post), CFP (prefabricated carbon fiber post), CPC (custom-made cast post and core), TIP (prefabricated titanium post), and MIP (prefabricated mixed post). The specimens were loaded in a universal testing machine until fracture occurrence. Failure loads were then analyzed with one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by multiple comparisons by using Tukey's honest significant difference test (α=0.05).
Mean (SD) failure loads for groups ranged from 524±73.2 N for CPC to 764.1±156 N for GFP. One-way ANOVA showed significant differences in terms of fracture resistances among groups (P<0.001). Tukey's honest significant difference test showed significant differences in fracture resistance within groups (P≤0.05), whereas no difference was observed between the UHT (control group) and CFP and CPC groups (P≥0.05).
Endodontically treated teeth restored with zirconia post, glass fiber post, titanium post, or mixed post were more resistant to fracture loads compared with those that were not restored (control group) or restored with either carbon fiber post or cast post and core.
本体外研究旨在评估采用不同桩系统的经根管治疗的上颌中切牙的抗折性。
使用56颗完整拔除的上颌恒中切牙,进行根管治疗(对照组除外),并根据桩的类型分为以下七个试验组(n = 8):UHT(对照组:根管充填但无根管桩的牙齿)、ZRP(预制氧化锆桩)、GFP(预制玻璃纤维桩)、CFP(预制碳纤维桩)、CPC(定制铸造桩核)、TIP(预制钛桩)和MIP(预制混合桩)。将标本在万能试验机上加载直至发生骨折。然后用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)分析失效载荷,接着使用Tukey诚实显著差异检验进行多重比较(α = 0.05)。
各组的平均(标准差)失效载荷范围为CPC组的524±73.2 N至GFP组的764.1±156 N。单因素方差分析显示各组之间在抗折性方面存在显著差异(P < 0.001)。Tukey诚实显著差异检验显示组内抗折性存在显著差异(P≤0.05),而UHT(对照组)与CFP和CPC组之间未观察到差异(P≥0.05)。
与未修复(对照组)或用碳纤维桩或铸造桩核修复的牙齿相比,用氧化锆桩、玻璃纤维桩、钛桩或混合桩修复的经根管治疗的牙齿对骨折载荷更具抵抗力。