首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Conservative Dentistry >A comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials: An in vitro study
【24h】

A comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials: An in vitro study

机译:用不同粘合剂恢复材料恢复模拟侵袭性宫颈吸收腔的椎间膜牙齿骨折的比较评价:体外研究

获取原文
           

摘要

Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities, restored with different restorative materials, namely, conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), flowable composite (FC), and giomer. Methods: Sixty extracted human permanent maxillary central incisor teeth were assigned to six groups,which were, Group 1 (intact teeth, control), Group 2 (teeth with biomechanical preparation and resorption cavity), Group 3 (CGIC), Group 4 (RMGIC), Group 5 (FC), and Group 6 (giomer). Except for Group 1, other groups were subjected to endodontic treatment. Teeth of Group 2 were left unobturated and teeth of Groups 3–6 were obturated. A simulated resorption cavity was prepared labially in the specimens belonging to Groups 2–6 and restored with respective restorative materials. The specimens were subjected to compressive load until failure in an Instron testing machine and the load at failure was recorded in Newtons. Statistical Analysis: The data obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, pair-wise comparison was made with Tukey's multiple comparison test, and P 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the fracture resistance of intact teeth and endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials. Among the restored teeth, there was no significant difference. Conclusion: Intact teeth were found to have the highest resistance to fracture followed by those restored with giomer, FC, RMGIC, and CGIC in that order.
机译:目的:该研究的目的是将脊髓处理牙齿的骨折性抗骨折与模拟侵入性宫颈吸收腔进行比较,以不同的恢复材料恢复,即常规的玻璃离聚物水泥(CGIC),树脂改性的玻璃离聚物水泥(RMGIC) ),可流动复合材料(Fc)和胶质器。方法:将六十提取的人永颌上颌中央切牙牙齿分配给六组,其中1组(完整的牙齿,控制),第2组(具有生物力学制剂和吸收腔的牙齿),第3组(CGIC),第4组(RMGIC) ),第5组(Fc)和第6组(Giomer)。除第1组外,对其他群体进行牙髓治疗。第2组的牙齿被留下不受阻碍,闭合3-6组的牙齿。模拟吸收腔在属于2-6组的样品中,并以各自的恢复材料恢复。对试样进行压缩负载,直到Instron试验机的失效,并且在牛顿中记录失败的负载。统计分析:使用单向ANOVA进行统计分析的数据,用Tukey的多个比较试验进行配对比较,P <0.05被认为是统计学意义。结果:具有不同粘合性恢复材料的模拟侵入性宫颈吸收腔的完整牙齿和胸腔牙齿的骨折性差异有统计学显着差异。在恢复的牙齿中,没有显着差异。结论:发现完整的牙齿具有骨折的最高抗性,然后以该顺序恢复的那些恢复的那些。

著录项

获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号