Year-end Sale % OFF 
Abstract
Adhesive luting of the final restorations is supposed to support the overall strength of post-endodontically restored teeth. For evaluating adhesive vs conventional cementation, the load capability of adhesively restored endodontically treated teeth (ETT) with glass fibre-reinforced composite posts (GFRCP), resin composite cores and all-ceramic crowns was determined. Thirty-two caries-free human upper, central incisors were randomly assigned to four groups, endodontically treated and cut 2 mm above the cemento-enamel junction. All teeth were restored with GFRCP, composite core build-ups and all-ceramic crowns. All-ceramic crowns were cemented with zinc phosphate cement (I), glass ionomer cement (II), and a self-adhesive resin cement (III and IV). After thermo-mechanical loading, the specimens were loaded to fracture. Maximum load capability F(max) and fracture patterns were compared using non-parametric statistics. Median values for the maximum load capability F(max) (minimum/maximum) in [N] were: I = 503 (416/1,038), II = 442 (369/711), III = 502 (326/561) and IV = 518 (416/652). No statistically significant differences were found for F(max) (p = 0.761) and fracture patterns (p = 0.094) between the experimental groups. The type of cementation of all-ceramic crowns, whether self-adhesive or conventional, appears to have no impact on the load capability of ETT restored with GFRCP and composite core build-ups.
Published Version
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
