Musapoor Naghmeh, Neshandar Asli Hamid, Mokhtari Soroosh, Babaee Hemmati Yasamin, Falahchai Mehran
Department of Prosthodontics Dental Sciences Research Center School of Dentistry Qazvin University of Medical Sciences, Qazvin, Iran.
Department of Prosthodontics Dental Sciences Research Center School of Dentistry Guilan University of Medical Sciences, Rasht, Iran.
Int J Dent. 2024 Aug 27;2024:9274141. doi: 10.1155/2024/9274141. eCollection 2024.
This study aimed to assess the effect of length of the relocated cervical margin with casting post and core (CP), prefabricated fiber post and composite core (PFP), and polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite (PEFRC) on fracture resistance and marginal integrity.
In this in vitro study, 70 sound human maxillary premolars were divided into seven groups according to the type of post and core system and length of the relocated cervical margin ( = 10): control (no preparation), PFP-3, PEFRC-3, CP-3 with 3 mm of cervical margin relocation (CMR), PFP-6, PEFRC-6, and CP-6 (with 6 mm of CMR). The samples were restored with zirconia crowns (except the control group). Epoxy resin replicas were fabricated before and after thermomechanical loading. Marginal integrity was assessed at the luting cement-core, core-tooth, and luting cement-enamel interfaces under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (×200). Fracture resistance and failure mode were subsequently assessed. Data were analyzed by independent -test, paired -test, ANOVA, Tukey-Games Howell, Mann-Whitney, Kruskal-Wallis, Wilcoxon, Mann-Whitney with Bonferroni correction, and Fisher-Freeman-Halton tests ( = 0.05).
The marginal integrity of the groups with 3 mm of CMR followed the following order: PEFRC > PFP > CP at all interfaces ( < 0.05). In 6-mm CMR groups, this order was CP < PFP = PEFRC at the luting cement-core and (CP < PEFRC) = PFP at the core-tooth interface. No significant difference was found in fracture resistance when comparing the 3-mm CMR groups with each other ( > 0.05). PFP-6 showed higher FR than CP-6 ( < 0.001). PEFRC-6 had no significant difference with PFP-6 and CP-6 ( > 0.05). In each post and core system, 3-mm CMR groups showed higher marginal integrity and fracture resistance ( < 0.05).
Increasing the length of the relocated cervical margin decreased the marginal integrity and fracture resistance of all three systems of CP, PFP, and PEFRC.
本研究旨在评估铸造桩核(CP)、预成纤维桩与复合树脂核(PFP)以及聚乙烯纤维增强复合树脂(PEFRC)修复时,重新定位的颈部边缘长度对牙体抗折性及边缘完整性的影响。
在这项体外研究中,70颗健康的人上颌前磨牙根据桩核系统类型和重新定位的颈部边缘长度分为七组(每组10颗):对照组(未做预备)、PFP-3组、PEFRC-3组、颈部边缘重新定位3mm(CMR)的CP-3组、PFP-6组、PEFRC-6组和CP-6组(颈部边缘重新定位6mm)。样本用氧化锆全冠修复(对照组除外)。在热机械加载前后制作环氧树脂复制品。在扫描电子显微镜(SEM,×200)下评估粘结水门汀-核、核-牙体以及粘结水门汀-牙釉质界面的边缘完整性。随后评估抗折性和失败模式。数据采用独立样本t检验、配对样本t检验、方差分析、Tukey-Games Howell检验、Mann-Whitney检验、Kruskal-Wallis检验、Wilcoxon检验、经Bonferroni校正的Mann-Whitney检验以及Fisher-Freeman-Halton检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。
颈部边缘重新定位3mm的各组在所有界面的边缘完整性顺序如下:PEFRC>PFP>CP(P<0.05)。在颈部边缘重新定位6mm的各组中,粘结水门汀-核界面的顺序为CP<PFP = PEFRC,核-牙体界面的顺序为(CP<PEFRC)= PFP。3mm颈部边缘重新定位的各组之间抗折性无显著差异(P>0.05)。PFP-6组的抗折性高于CP-6组(P<0.001)。PEFRC-6组与PFP-6组和CP-6组无显著差异(P>0.05)。在每种桩核系统中,3mm颈部边缘重新定位的各组显示出更高的边缘完整性和抗折性(P<0.05)。
增加重新定位的颈部边缘长度会降低CP、PFP和PEFRC这三种系统的边缘完整性和抗折性。