Effect of using the New Glass Fiber Pin in Resin Composite Restorations.

Autor:	de Moraes Melo Neto CL; Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa Maringa, Parana, Brazil, Phone: +5544997579986, e-mail: lamartineclovis@gmail.com., Costa GT; Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa Maringa, Parana, Brazil., Lorga T; Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa Maringa, Parana, Brazil., Santin GC; Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa Maringa, Parana, Brazil., Mondelli J; Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil., Sabio S; Department of Dentistry, State University of Maringa Maringa, Parana, Brazil.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	The journal of contemporary dental practice [J Contemp Dent Pract] 2018 May 01; Vol. 19 (5), pp. 541-545. Date of Electronic Publication: 2018 May 01.
Abstrakt:	Aim: The purpose was to compare the fracture strength between restorations containing the metal pin (MP) and those containing the glass fiber pin (GFP). Materials and Methods: Forty-five healthy bovine anterior teeth were used in this study. A preparation of 4 mm × 4 mm was created on the incisal surface of each tooth. All teeth were prepared in the same way. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15): group I-control: teeth restored with resin composite (RC) only, without reinforcement; group II-Each tooth was restored with a MP and RC; group III-Each tooth was restored with a GFP and RC. The specimens were left in an oven at a temperature of 37°C for 24 hours before performing the fracture strength tests. The fracture strength test was performed in a universal test machine at an angle of 90°. Results: The Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05) showed that for the variable maximum force (kgf), there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.272). The chi-square test showed that groups II and III presented over 70% of cohesive-adhesive type fractures when compared with group I (over 70% of adhesive fractures), and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The pins tested did not increase the fracture resistance of the restorations (RC) in comparison with group I (without reinforcement); however, with the use of the MP and GFP, there was a predominance of cohesive-adhesive fractures (groups II and III). Clinical Significance: Evaluate if the new GFP can generate greater resistance to fracture of RC restorations.
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu