ஜர்னல் ஆஃப் யுனிவர்சல் சர்ஜரி

  • ஐ.எஸ்.எஸ்.என்: 2254-6758
  • ஜர்னல் எச்-இண்டெக்ஸ்: 8
  • ஜர்னல் மேற்கோள் மதிப்பெண்: 1.33
  • ஜர்னல் தாக்க காரணி: 1.34
குறியிடப்பட்டது
  • ஜெனமிக்ஸ் ஜர்னல்சீக்
  • டைரக்டரி ஆஃப் ரிசர்ச் ஜர்னல் இன்டெக்சிங் (DRJI)
  • OCLC- WorldCat
  • யூரோ பப்
  • கூகுள் ஸ்காலர்
  • ஷெர்பா ரோமியோ
இந்தப் பக்கத்தைப் பகிரவும்

சுருக்கம்

Effect of Surface Treatment on Retention of Prefabricated Glass-fiber Posts

Setayesh Farzad,Imani-Emadi MohammadMehdi,Khodabakhsh Marziyeh,Saki Golnaz,Mirsalehi Seyed-Hasan

Backgrounds: Coronal reconstruction of anterior teeth after root canal therapy is very important. One of the common treatments of these teeth is by using the glass-fiber posts. The aim of this study was to compare the retention of glass-fiber posts with two different surface treatment methods in maxillary central incisors.

Methods and Materials: Forty-eight extracted non carious human maxillary central incisors were selected. The coronal aspect of each tooth was removed from cemento-enamel Junction, and the remaining root received root canal therapy. Post spaces were prepared in all specimens to a depth of 8 millimeters by using a peeso-reamer size 5. The teeth were divided randomly into three groups of 16 teeth. The glass-fiber posts with differentsurface treatments were cemented in each group; A. no surface treatment in glass-fiber posts (control group), B. surface treatment with sandblast on glass-fiber posts, and C. surface treatment with ethanol on glass-fiber posts. All specimens were mounted in acrylic resin. Finally, a Universal Testing Machine was used to apply tensile load to dislodge each post from the prepared postspace. Statistical analysis was performed at the significance level of 0.05. Results: The mean tensile force for removing the posts of each groups in Kilo Newton were as follows: A. 0.164, B. 0.164, and C. 0.165. There was no significant difference among the three groups.

Conclusion: Treating the surface of the glass-fiber posts with sandblast or ethanol before cementation with Panavia F 2.0 cement produced no significant improvement in the retention of the posts.