These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [The effect of different fabrication methods and luting cements on post retention].
    Author: Ma HM, Li ZC, Li H, Chen X.
    Journal: Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi; 2004 Apr; 22(2):152-4. PubMed ID: 15190802.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: This study was to compare the retention of posts fabricated by different methods and cemented with various cements in order to provide a guidance for clinical choice of post fabrication methods and luting cements. METHODS: Ninety human maxillary anterior teeth were sectioned by the cementoenamel junction and post-holes were prepared. All roots were embedded in the center of plastic cylinders and paralleled with the cylinder. All samples were divided into 9 groups randomly and equally. Posts fabricated with different methods were then cemented with different luting cements. Each sample was placed into a specialized jig and mounted on a tensile testing machine with crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Constant tensile force was applied until the post was dislodged, and the tensile force required to dislodge the cemented post was recorded. RESULTS: The mean retention force of parapost and direct post demonstrated significantly higher than that of indirect post did (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between parapost and direct post(P > 0.05). The mean retention of parapost cement demonstrated significantly higher than that of ZPC and HY-Bond cement did (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference between ZPC and HY-Bond cement (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Different fabrication methods and luting cements significantly affect the retention of posts; and there exists an interaction between different fabricating methods and luting cements.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]