Rigidity and retention of ceramic root canal posts

View/ Open
File version
Version of Record (VoR)
Author(s)
Purton, DG
Love, RM
Chandler, NP
Griffith University Author(s)
Year published
2000
Metadata
Show full item recordAbstract
Ceramic root-canal posts offer potential advantages over other types with respect to aesthetics and biocompatibility. Any post must be sufficiently rigid and retentive to withstand functional forces. Ceraposts (1.2 mm coronal diameter, ceramic, tapering, smooth posts) and Paraposts (1.25 mm, stainless-steel, parallel, serrated posts) were tested for rigidity by means of a three-point bending test. To test retention in roots, ceramic posts were cemented using one of three protocols: (1) glass-ionomer cement, (2) silane coupling agent and resin cement, or (3) sandblasted post surface, silane coupling agent, and resin cement. ...
View more >Ceramic root-canal posts offer potential advantages over other types with respect to aesthetics and biocompatibility. Any post must be sufficiently rigid and retentive to withstand functional forces. Ceraposts (1.2 mm coronal diameter, ceramic, tapering, smooth posts) and Paraposts (1.25 mm, stainless-steel, parallel, serrated posts) were tested for rigidity by means of a three-point bending test. To test retention in roots, ceramic posts were cemented using one of three protocols: (1) glass-ionomer cement, (2) silane coupling agent and resin cement, or (3) sandblasted post surface, silane coupling agent, and resin cement. Stainless-steel posts were cemented with resin. The tensile force required to dislodge the posts, following four weeks of storage in water, was recorded. Data were compared using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U analysis. Ceraposts were significantly more rigid than Paraposts (p < 0.001). Paraposts cemented with resin were significantly more strongly retained than Ceraposts following any cementation protocol (p < 0.001). Retention of the ceramic posts was significantly greater with a silane coupling agent and resin cement than with glass-ionomer cement (p < 0.001). Sandblasting the ceramic posts produced variable results and needs further investigation before it could be recommended.
View less >
View more >Ceramic root-canal posts offer potential advantages over other types with respect to aesthetics and biocompatibility. Any post must be sufficiently rigid and retentive to withstand functional forces. Ceraposts (1.2 mm coronal diameter, ceramic, tapering, smooth posts) and Paraposts (1.25 mm, stainless-steel, parallel, serrated posts) were tested for rigidity by means of a three-point bending test. To test retention in roots, ceramic posts were cemented using one of three protocols: (1) glass-ionomer cement, (2) silane coupling agent and resin cement, or (3) sandblasted post surface, silane coupling agent, and resin cement. Stainless-steel posts were cemented with resin. The tensile force required to dislodge the posts, following four weeks of storage in water, was recorded. Data were compared using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney U analysis. Ceraposts were significantly more rigid than Paraposts (p < 0.001). Paraposts cemented with resin were significantly more strongly retained than Ceraposts following any cementation protocol (p < 0.001). Retention of the ceramic posts was significantly greater with a silane coupling agent and resin cement than with glass-ionomer cement (p < 0.001). Sandblasting the ceramic posts produced variable results and needs further investigation before it could be recommended.
View less >
Journal Title
Operative Dentistry
Volume
25
Issue
3
Copyright Statement
© 2000 Operative Dentistry The attached file is reproduced here in accordance with the copyright policy of the publisher. Please refer to the journal's website for access to the definitive, published version.
Subject
Dentistry
Dentistry not elsewhere classified