SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.27 número2EVALUATION OF MICROLEAKAGE DEGREE IN COMPOSITE RESIN RESTORATIONS BY COMPARING TWO ADHESIVES SYSTEMS AFTER DIFFERENT AGING PERIODSCOMPARISON OF THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF CERAMIC COATING AND ZIRCONIA SURFACE WITH AND WITHOUT MODIFICATIONS índice de autoresíndice de assuntospesquisa de artigos
Home Pagelista alfabética de periódicos  

Serviços Personalizados

Journal

Artigo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • Em processo de indexaçãoCitado por Google
  • Não possue artigos similaresSimilares em SciELO
  • Em processo de indexaçãoSimilares em Google

Compartilhar


Revista Facultad de Odontología Universidad de Antioquia

versão impressa ISSN 0121-246X

Resumo

MORENO-PRECIADO, Juliana; VIVAS-MONCAYO, Juan Carlos; CAMPO-GOMEZ, Isabel Cristina  e  GARZON-RAYO, Herney. EVALUATION OF PUSH-OUT BOND STRENGTH IN FIBERGLASS POSTS CEMENTED IN NATURAL TEETH USING DIFFERENT CEMENTATION PROTOCOLS. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq [online]. 2016, vol.27, n.2, pp.296-321. ISSN 0121-246X.  https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.rfo.v27n2a4.

Introduction:

endodontically treated teeth usually need to be rehabilitated with posts that normally undergo a restoration. The material replacing lost dentin must guarantee appropriate clinical performance (post, cement, or rehabilitator) and closely integrate to dentin, forming a single unit. The goal of this article is to determine which cementation protocol for fiber glass posts shows the best adhesive strength in the presence of the push-out test.

Methods:

a sample of 60 teeth were divided into two groups and subdivided into two subgroups, performing four cuts with an IsoMet® 1000 Precision machine (Buehler) and a diamond disc (Isocut Wafering Blade-CBN HC) measuring 7 inches in diameter and 0.03 inches thick, obtaining three root disks: one of the cervical area, one of the middle zone, and another of the apical area. The groups were sorted out as follows: Group 1: 30 teeth filled with epoxy resin cement (Top Seal). Sub-groups 1.1 (15 teeth) and 2.1 (15 teeth), which were treated with Condac 37% acid phosphoric, 2% chlorhexidine, Duolink cement, and prefabricated post. Group 2: 30 teeth filled with zinc oxide eugenol cement (Grossman). Sub-groups 1.2 (15 teeth) and 2.2 (15 teeth), treated with 32% Uni-etch acid, Duolink cement, and prefabricated post. All samples were subjected to the push-out test using a universal machine (Instron, model: ELS-5, made in China, with 1 to 600 Kn load capacity). Samples were photographed with a digital camera AxioCam ERc5s® Zeiss, stereo-microscope Stemi 2000-CG® in order to carry out an observational analysis of the results according to failure type.

Results:

failure types: cohesive to dentin (CD), adhesive to post (AP), adhesive to dentine (AD). Most frequent failures: Group 1, subgroup 1.1: middle zone (CD 80%). Subgroup 1.2: middle zone (AD 66.7%). Group 2, subgroup 2.1: apical area (AD 73.3%). Subgroup 2.2: apical area (AD 86.7%).

Conclusions:

there were no statistically significant differences between the Grossman and the Top Seal cements, but there was less adhesive strength with the Grossman cement, and lower resistance with the Uni-etch phosphoric acid and no chlorhexidine, compared to phosphoric acid plus chlorhexidine.

Palavras-chave : cementation; adhesion; dentin; post.

        · resumo em Espanhol     · texto em Inglês | Espanhol     · Inglês ( pdf )