Cargando…
Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal
Background: Posts that have been properly fitted can withstand torsion forces and so provide better retention. The push-out bonding strength of glass fiber posts to the root canal was evaluated using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite (FC). Method: Forty single-rooted...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
MDPI
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8618525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34832308 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14226908 |
_version_ | 1784604768775176192 |
---|---|
author | Cheruvathoor, Jalison Jacob Thomas, Lincy Rachel Thomas, Lirin Ann Shivanna, Madhuniranjanswamy Mahalakshmamma Machani, Pramod Naik, Sachin Al Kheraif, Abdulaziz Abdullah |
author_facet | Cheruvathoor, Jalison Jacob Thomas, Lincy Rachel Thomas, Lirin Ann Shivanna, Madhuniranjanswamy Mahalakshmamma Machani, Pramod Naik, Sachin Al Kheraif, Abdulaziz Abdullah |
author_sort | Cheruvathoor, Jalison Jacob |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: Posts that have been properly fitted can withstand torsion forces and so provide better retention. The push-out bonding strength of glass fiber posts to the root canal was evaluated using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite (FC). Method: Forty single-rooted maxillary central incisors were used in the study. The samples were randomly divided into two groups of 20 teeth each. The crown-down procedure was used to clean and shape the pulp area. A Tenax fiber trans Coltene whaletene post was used by both groups. The first group utilized FC (Filtek Z 350 3M ESPE) to coat the post, whereas the second group used RMGIC (Rely X 3M ESPE). The specimens were cross-sectioned after 24 h. Specimens were cross-sectioned four millimeters thick into coronal and middle parts using a sectioning machine, yielding 40 specimens per group. The strength of the bond between the luting cement and the posts was measured using push-out bond strength testing. We loaded the components at a cross speed of 0.5 mm/min on a universal testing machine until the bond failed. Results: The FC group had a 4.80 N push-out bond strength, whereas the RMGIC group had a 7.11 N push-out bond strength. Conclusion: FC’s mean push-out bond strength score is lower than RMGIC’s. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8618525 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | MDPI |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86185252021-11-27 Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal Cheruvathoor, Jalison Jacob Thomas, Lincy Rachel Thomas, Lirin Ann Shivanna, Madhuniranjanswamy Mahalakshmamma Machani, Pramod Naik, Sachin Al Kheraif, Abdulaziz Abdullah Materials (Basel) Article Background: Posts that have been properly fitted can withstand torsion forces and so provide better retention. The push-out bonding strength of glass fiber posts to the root canal was evaluated using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite (FC). Method: Forty single-rooted maxillary central incisors were used in the study. The samples were randomly divided into two groups of 20 teeth each. The crown-down procedure was used to clean and shape the pulp area. A Tenax fiber trans Coltene whaletene post was used by both groups. The first group utilized FC (Filtek Z 350 3M ESPE) to coat the post, whereas the second group used RMGIC (Rely X 3M ESPE). The specimens were cross-sectioned after 24 h. Specimens were cross-sectioned four millimeters thick into coronal and middle parts using a sectioning machine, yielding 40 specimens per group. The strength of the bond between the luting cement and the posts was measured using push-out bond strength testing. We loaded the components at a cross speed of 0.5 mm/min on a universal testing machine until the bond failed. Results: The FC group had a 4.80 N push-out bond strength, whereas the RMGIC group had a 7.11 N push-out bond strength. Conclusion: FC’s mean push-out bond strength score is lower than RMGIC’s. MDPI 2021-11-16 /pmc/articles/PMC8618525/ /pubmed/34832308 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14226908 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Cheruvathoor, Jalison Jacob Thomas, Lincy Rachel Thomas, Lirin Ann Shivanna, Madhuniranjanswamy Mahalakshmamma Machani, Pramod Naik, Sachin Al Kheraif, Abdulaziz Abdullah Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title | Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title_full | Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title_fullStr | Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title_full_unstemmed | Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title_short | Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal |
title_sort | push-out bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement and flowable composite luting systems on glass fiber post of root canal |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8618525/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34832308 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14226908 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT cheruvathoorjalisonjacob pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT thomaslincyrachel pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT thomaslirinann pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT shivannamadhuniranjanswamymahalakshmamma pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT machanipramod pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT naiksachin pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal AT alkheraifabdulazizabdullah pushoutbondstrengthofresinmodifiedglassionomercementandflowablecompositelutingsystemsonglassfiberpostofrootcanal |