| Autor: |
Singh M; Independent Researcher, Oakville, Ontario, Canada., Singh S; Department of Periodontology, Subharti Dental College and Hospital, Swami Vivekanand Subharti University, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh, India., Kumar L; Department of Prosthodontics, King George`s Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India., Mattoo KA; Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia., Khalid I; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Kota MZ; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Udeabor SE; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Baig FAH; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Ishfaq M; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Ibrahim M; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia., Basheer SA; Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia. |
| Abstrakt: |
BACKGROUND A luting agent is a dental cement used to secure a dental restoration. This study aimed to evaluate retentive strength of 50 endodontically-treated single-rooted mandibular second premolars (extracted) restored using 5 common luting (cement) agents. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fifty single-rooted mandibular second premolars with adequate root length and uniform size/shape were decoronated. After completing endodontic biomechanical preparation and obturation, root canals of all specimens were prepared to receive a cast post core. Depending upon cementation type, CPC specimens were divided in 5 groups (10 each) (Gp): Zinc phosphate (Gp ZP), polycarboxylate (Gp PC), glass ionomer (Gp GI), resin-modified glass ionomer (Gp RGI), and resin cement (Gp RC). Retentive strength was determined using the adhesive failure pull-out test. Mean/standard deviations were calculated for tensile forces (in kilograms) and differences were determined using analysis of variance (ANOVA). Multiple comparison was performed using the t test. A P value of ≤0.05 indicated a statistically significant difference. RESULTS The order of mean tensile strength from higher to lower was Gp RC (21.46) >Gp RGI (18.17) >Gp GI (16.07) >Gp ZP (15.33) >Gp PC (13.63). Differences in retentive strengths between the cements were significant (P≤0.05). Multiple-group comparisons showed that except for Gp ZP and Gp GI, all groups differed significantly from each other. CONCLUSIONS All investigated cements provided optimal retentive strengths, with wide differences between them. Resin cements should be used when CPC removal is not anticipated, while polycarboxylate or zinc phosphate should be used if CPC removal is anticipated. |
