Z. Bahrololoomi, Alireza Danesh Kazemi, F. Zarebidoki, Mahsa Mohammadi
{"title":"In Vitro Effect of Luting Cement on Fracture Resistance of Primary Maxillary Central Incisors with Fiber Posts","authors":"Z. Bahrololoomi, Alireza Danesh Kazemi, F. Zarebidoki, Mahsa Mohammadi","doi":"10.18502/fid.v21i26.16117","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: The use of fiber posts in endodontically treated primary maxillary central incisors improves the retention of composite resin restorations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of 4 different luting cements on fracture resistance of primary maxillary central incisors with fiber posts. \nMaterials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 40 primary maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and obturated with Metapex. They were then randomly divided into four groups (n=10) for cementation of fiber posts with GC Fuji I glass ionomer luting cement, Panavia F2.0 dual-cure luting cement, Panavia SA Luting Plus cement (self-adhesive), and TotalCem self-adhesive cement. After 1000 thermal cycles, the fracture resistance was measured. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA (alpha=0.05). \nResults: The mean fracture resistance was 267.07±130.01N in TotalCem, 257.27±102.56N in Panavia F2.0 dual-cure cement, 227.82±110.40N in Panavia SA Luting Plus self-adhesive cement, and 220.89±59.96N in GC Fuji I glass ionomer group. There was no statistically significant difference in fracture resistance among the four groups (P=0.714). \nConclusion: Type of luting cement had no significant effect on fracture resistance of primary maxillary central incisors with fiber posts. Nonetheless, TotalCem yielded the highest fracture resistance. Considering its self-adhesive property and easy workability, it can be a good option for cementation of fiber posts in endodontically treated primary central incisors.","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"97 22","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v21i26.16117","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objectives: The use of fiber posts in endodontically treated primary maxillary central incisors improves the retention of composite resin restorations. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of 4 different luting cements on fracture resistance of primary maxillary central incisors with fiber posts.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 40 primary maxillary central incisors were endodontically treated and obturated with Metapex. They were then randomly divided into four groups (n=10) for cementation of fiber posts with GC Fuji I glass ionomer luting cement, Panavia F2.0 dual-cure luting cement, Panavia SA Luting Plus cement (self-adhesive), and TotalCem self-adhesive cement. After 1000 thermal cycles, the fracture resistance was measured. Data were statistically analyzed using ANOVA (alpha=0.05).
Results: The mean fracture resistance was 267.07±130.01N in TotalCem, 257.27±102.56N in Panavia F2.0 dual-cure cement, 227.82±110.40N in Panavia SA Luting Plus self-adhesive cement, and 220.89±59.96N in GC Fuji I glass ionomer group. There was no statistically significant difference in fracture resistance among the four groups (P=0.714).
Conclusion: Type of luting cement had no significant effect on fracture resistance of primary maxillary central incisors with fiber posts. Nonetheless, TotalCem yielded the highest fracture resistance. Considering its self-adhesive property and easy workability, it can be a good option for cementation of fiber posts in endodontically treated primary central incisors.