Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

ENDODONTIK OLARAK TEDAVİ EDİLMİŞ ON DİŞLERİN ÇEŞİTLİ POST-CORE ALTERNATİFLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

A COMPARISON OF VARIOUS POST-CORE ALTERNATIVES FOR ENDODONTICALLY TREATED ANTERIOR TEETH

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1997

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
This study attempted to investigate the most suitable post-core for the restoration of the central teeth without crown by using mechanical stress analysis and finite element methods. Cana] pos t [radix anchor) , dentine pins and coronal radicular techniques were used for the restoration of the samples of roots of central teeth. These samples were resLored alternately by silver amalgam, light cured composite and conventional glass ionomer. 57 central teeth were chosen teeth were chosen for mechanical stress analysis. The samples were randomly divided into three groups to be studied by three different techmquess and each group were divided into three subgroups for restoration with the restorative material mentioned above. Samples taken from 9 subgroups were embedded into acrylic block down to 1 mm level of cole. The samples were tested by instron machine in order to determine their ability for resistance against pressure. The statistical values obtained from the results of the mechanical stress analysis showed that the denline pin proved to be the most suitable cavity alternative and the composite appeared to be more resistant material than others, whereas eorona-radicufar technique was found to be the weakest cavity alternative and glass ionomer to be the poorest restorative material.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Çalışmamada, kuron kısmı bulunmayan sanıra! dişlerin restorasyonu için cn uygun post-core alternatifi, mekanik stres analizi ve sonlu elemanlar metodu kullanılarak araştırılmıştır. Santral diş köklerinden oluşan örneklere, kanal pim (kök arikeri), dentin pini Ve korOno-radikular lekniği uygulanmıştır. Ayrıca bu örnekler, amalgam, ışıkla sertleşen kompozit ve geleneksel cam iyonomerle restore edilmiştir. Mekanik stres analizi için 57 adet santral diş temin edilmiştir. Dişler kanal pini, denlin pini vç korono-radikular teknik için üç ana gruba bölünmüştür. Bu gruplar, yukarıda belirtilen üç dolgu maddesiyle restore edilmek üzere, kendi içinde üç alt gruba ayrılarak 9 deney grubu elde edilmiş ve herbir örnek, köle seviyesinin 1 mm altına kadar akrile gömülmüştür. Örneklere instron test makinası yardımıyla kuvvet uygulanmış ve kırılma değerleri elde edilmiştir. Mekanik stres analizi sonucunda elde edilen istatistik! değerler, kavite altamatifi olarak dentin pinli, restoratif materyal olarak da kompozitin diğerlerinden daha dayanıklı olduğunu ortaya çıkarmıştır. En dayanaksız kavite şeklinin koron a-radik ular teknik, restoratif materyalin ise cam iyonomer olduğu tespit edilmişti
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-endodontik-olarak-tedavi-edilmis-dislerin-cesitli-post-core-alternatiflerinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 2
58-65
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1
Standlee JP, Caputo AA.S Hanson F.C. Retention of endodontic dowels, J Prosthet Dent 1978; 39. 401-405
2. Nayyar A, Walton RE, Leonard L A An amalgam coronal radicular dowel and core technique for endodonticallv treated posterior teeth. J l^rosthct Dent 1980; 43.511-514.
3.
Zaimoğl
u A, Can G, Erscıy E, Aksu L. Diş hekimliğinde maddeler bilgisi. Ankara: Ankara Üniversitesi Basımevi, 1993; 225-350.
4. Taleghani M, leinfelder KR Fvaluation of glass, ionomer cement with silver as a core tmidup under a cast restoration. Dentak Research. 1988; 19: 19-24.
5. Brandal JL., Nicholls Jl, Harrington GWA. comparison ol three restorative techniques for endodontic^ly treated anterior teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1987; 58. 161-165.6.
Yıldı
z N, Bircan H. Araştırma ve deneme metodları. Erzurum: Atatürk Üniv, Ziraat Fak, Ofset tesisleri, 1994; 65 67.
7.
Radk
e RA, Barklıordar RA, Podesta R E. J Prosthet Dent. 1988; 59. 318-320.
8. Hunter A. Flood A,T he restoration of Endodontically Treated teeth. Part 1 .Treatment planning and restorative principles. Australian Dental Journal, 1988; 33.481-490,
9. Trabert KC, Cooney .TP. The endodontically treated tooth. Dental Clinics of North America. 1984; 28. 923-949.
10. Kantor ME, Pines MS, A omperative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth 1977; 405-411.
11. Guzy EG, Nicholis JI. In vitro comparison of intact endodontically treated teeth with and without endo-post reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent. 1979; 42. 39 44.
12. Hoag fiP, DwyerTG. A comperative evaluation of three post and core techniques. J Prosthet Dent. 1982; 47: 177-181.
13. Chan RW, Bryant RW. Post-core foundations for endodontically treated posterior teeth, J Prosthet Dent, 1982; 48.401-406.
14. Eshelman EG, Sayegh FS, Dowel materials and root fracture. J Prosthet Dent- 1983; 50: 342-344
15. Mattison GD, Anthony Von Fraunyhofer J. Angulation loading cf fects on cast- gold endodontic posts: A Photoelastics stress analysis. J Prosthet Dent. 1983; 49:
636- 638,
16. Mosen PJ, Nicholis JI, Van Hassel HJ. An invitra comparison of retention between a hollow post and core and a solid post and core. Journal of Endodontics 1984; 10, 91-95.
17. Deutsch AS, Cavallari J, Musıkant RL, Silverstcin L, Lepley J, Petroni G. Root fracture and the design of prefabricated posts. J Prosthet Dent. T985; 53:
637- 640.
18. Grundy JR, Jones JCT, A colour atlas of clinical operative dentistry crowns ( bridges, London; Wolfe Publishing, 1992: 126-128.
19. Sorensen AJ, Martinoff JT. Clinicall significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 1984; 52. 28-35.
20. Volwier RA, Nicholis JI, Harrington GW, A comparison of three core buildup materials used in conjunction with two post systems in endodontically treated qanterior teeth. Journal of endodontics, 1989; 15. 355-361.
21. Assif D, Oren E, Marshak BL, Aviv [ Pholoelastic analysis of stress transfer by endodontically treated teeth to the supporting structure using different restorative techniques, J Prosthet Dent. 1989; 61.5 535-542.
22. Halle F: B, Nicholis JI, Van Hassel H J. An in vitro comparison of retention between a hollow post and core and a custom hollow post and core. Journal of Endodontics. 1984; 10. 96-100.
23. Caputo AA, Hokama SN. Retention and stress-distributing characteristics of a new dowel system, 1984; 51. 652-655.
24. Hertl NH, Nicholis JI, Van Hassel HJ. The effect of crimping on the retention of hollow posts. Journal of Endodontics. 1984; 10. 135-139.
25. Chapman KW, Worley JL, Fraunhofcr JA. Retention prefabricated posts by cements and resins. J Prosthet Dent. 1985; 53: 496-500,
26. Fujimato J, Norman RD, Dykcma RW, Philips RW. A comparison of pin retained amalgam and composite resin cores. J Prosthet. Dent. 1978; 39. 512-519.
27. Moll JFP, Howe DF, Svarc CV. Cast gold posL and core and pin-retained composite resin bases: A comperative study in strength. J Prosthet Dent. 1978; 40: 642-644.
28. Georig AC, Mueninghoff LA. Management of the endodontically treated tooth. Part 2: Technique. J. Prosthet. Dent. 1983; 49: 491^97.
29. Plasmans PJJM., Visseren LGJ, Vrijhoef MMA, Kayser AF. In vitro comparison of dowel and core techniques for endodontically treated molars. Journal of endodontics. 1986; 12. 382-387.
30. Plasmans PJJM, Welle PL., Vrijhoef MMA. In vitro resistance of composite resin dowel and cores. Journal of endodontics- 1988; 14, 300-304.
31. Kilpatrick NM, Munsy JJ, McCabe JR. The use of a reinforced glass mosen ionomer cermet for the restoration of primary molars: a clinical trials. British Dental Journal, 1995; 179: 175-179.
32. Tjan AHF,,., Whang SB. Resistance to rûûl
fracture of dowel channels with verious thicknesses of buccal dentin walls, J Prosthet Dent 1985; 53 496-500,

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com