Izadi Alireza, Heidari Bijan, Fotovat Farnoush, Shahbazi Armaghan, Allahbakhshi Hanif, Roshanaei Ghodratollah, Farhangian Zohre, Kiani Kioumars
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Hamadan University of Medical Sciences, Hamadan, Iran.
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020 Aug 14;17(4):244-250. eCollection 2020 Jul-Aug.
Post and core treatment is commonly performed for endodontically treated teeth to replace the lost tooth structure and reinforce and protect the remaining dental tissue. This study aimed to compare the effect of three-core building materials on fracture resistance of endodontically-treated teeth restored with fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts and ParaPosts.
This , experimental study evaluated 108 sound, single-rooted mandibular first premolars extracted for orthodontic purposes. The teeth were randomly divided into nine groups ( = 12) of control (no endodontic or restorative treatment), FRC + Photo Core (Group 2), FRC + LuxaCore (Group 3), FRC + Core Max II with bonding agent (Group 4), FRC + Core Max II without bonding agent (Group 5), ParaPost + Photo Core (Group 6), ParaPost + LuxaCore (Group 7), ParaPost + Core Max II with bonding agent (Group 8), and ParaPost + Core Max II without bonding agent (Group 9). The fracture resistance was measured by applying the load at 45° angle relative to the longitudinal axis of the tooth with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min using a universal testing machine. Data were through descriptive statistics, Tukey's test, and one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05).
The mean fracture resistance was 454.0 ± 62.7, 410.8 ± 48.3, 365.1 ± 42.1, 423.7 ± 111.7, 392.4 ± 90.0, 292.3 ± 83.9, 242.3 ± 73.4, 278.2 ± 67.9, and 247.3 ± 49.6 N in Groups 1-9, respectively. Group 4 showed the highest fracture resistance, which was significantly higher than this study the value in all ParaPost and control groups ( < 0.05) but had no significant difference with the fracture resistance of other groups ( > 0.05).
Fracture resistance is independent of the type of core building material used, and the tested products had no superiority over each other. The mean fracture resistance of FRC post groups were significantly higher than that of ParaPost groups. Furthermore, Core Max II + bonding agent yielded insignificantly higher fracture resistance than Core Max II without bonding agent.
桩核治疗常用于经牙髓治疗的牙齿，以替代缺失的牙体结构，增强并保护剩余的牙体组织。本研究旨在比较三种桩核材料对用纤维增强复合材料（FRC）桩和帕拉桩修复的经牙髓治疗牙齿抗折性的影响。
本实验研究评估了108颗因正畸目的拔除的健康单根下颌第一前磨牙。这些牙齿被随机分为九组（每组n = 12），分别为对照组（未进行牙髓或修复治疗）、FRC + 光固化树脂核（第2组）、FRC + 卢莎树脂核（第3组）、FRC + 二代卡瑞斯玛桩核并使用粘结剂（第4组）、FRC + 二代卡瑞斯玛桩核未使用粘结剂（第5组）、帕拉桩 + 光固化树脂核（第6组）、帕拉桩 + 卢莎树脂核（第7组）、帕拉桩 + 二代卡瑞斯玛桩核并使用粘结剂（第8组）、帕拉桩 + 二代卡瑞斯玛桩核未使用粘结剂（第9组）。使用万能试验机以1 mm/min的十字头速度，相对于牙齿纵轴以45°角施加负荷来测量抗折性。数据通过描述性统计、Tukey检验和单因素方差分析（α = 0.05）进行分析。
第1 - 9组的平均抗折性分别为454.0 ± 62.7、410.8 ± 48.3、365.1 ± 42.1、423.7 ± 111.7、392.4 ± 90.0、292.3 ± 83.9、242.3 ± 73.4、278.2 ± 67.9和247.3 ± 49.6 N。第4组显示出最高的抗折性，显著高于本研究中所有帕拉桩组和对照组的值（P < 0.05），但与其他组的抗折性无显著差异（P > 0.05）。
抗折性与所使用的桩核材料类型无关，所测试的产品之间没有优势差异。FRC桩组的平均抗折性显著高于帕拉桩组。此外，二代卡瑞斯玛桩核 + 粘结剂产生的抗折性略高于未使用粘结剂的二代卡瑞斯玛桩核。
