Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

İLERİ DERECEDE MADDE KAYBI BULUNAN SÜT AZILARINDA ÇEŞİTLİ AMALGAM TUTUCULUK YÖNTEMLERİNİN ARAŞTIRILMASI

INVESTIGA TION OF VARIOUS RETENTION TECHNIQUES FOR EXTENSIVE AMALGAM RESTORA TIONS IN PRIMAR Y MOLARS

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1994

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The effect of amalgapin, TMS Minikin, TMS Minuta pins, circumferential amalgam slot and Baldwin retention methods on fracture resistance of amalgam restorations have been investigated; and the applicability of those methods on primary molars have been evaluated. The mean fracture values obtained for amalgapin, circumferential amalgam slot, Minikin, Minuta and Baldwin groups were, respectively, 104.08 kg, 93.92 kg, 86.75 kg, 52.17 kg and 60.33 kg. No significant differences were found between amalgapin - circumferential amalgam slot, circumferential amalgam slot - Minikin, Minuta - Baldwin methods. Significant differences were obtained between amalgapin - Minikin, amalgapin - Minuta, amalgapin -Baldwin, circumferential amalgam slot - Minuta, circumferential amalgam slot - Baldwin, Minikin - Minuta, Minikin - Baldwin methods. It is determined that all those methods applied to primary molars can resist the chewing stresses of children and they all can be used successfully in primary molars. However, since the highest fracture values have been obtained by amalgapin method, and since the amalgapin retention method is more economic, practical than the pin systems, and more conservative than the circumferential amalgam slot, it has been concluded that the amalgapin method is the most successful retention method.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Süt azılarının amalgam restorasyonlarında amalgapin, TMS Minikin, TMS Minuta pinleri, çevresel amalgam slot ve Baldwin tutuculuk yöntemlerinin amalgamm kırılma direncine olan etkileri in vitro olarak araştırıldı; bu yöntemlerin süt azılarında uygulanabilirlikleri değerlendirildi. Amalgapin, çevresel amalgam slot, TMS Minikin, TMS Minuta pinleri ve Baldwin yöntemlerinin uygulandığı dişlerde ortalama kırılma kuvvet değerleri sırasıyla 104.08 kg, 93.92 kg, 86.75 kg, 52.17 kg ve 60.33 kg olarak saptandı. Amalgapin - çevresel amalgam slot, çevresel amalgam slot - TMS Minikin pinleri, TMS Minuta pinleri - Baldwin yöntemleri arasında anlamlı farklılıklar saptanmadı. Amalgapin - TMS Minikin, amalgapin - TMS Minuta, amalgapin -Baldwin, çevresel amalgam slot - TMS Minuta, çevresel amalgam slot - Baldwin, TMS Minikin - TMS Minuta, TMS Minikin - Baldwin yöntemleri arasındaki farklılıkların ise anlamlı olduğu bulundu. Süz azılarında uygulanan tüm bu yöntemlerin çocukların çiğneme basınçlarına yeterli düzeyde direnç gösterebilecekleri ve süt azılarında başarı ile uygulanabileceği belirlendi. Ancak, en yüksek değerlerin amalgapin yöntemi ile elde edilmesi ve amalgapin tutuculuk yönteminin pin sistemlerine göre daha ekonomik ve kolay, çevresel slot yöntemine göre İse daha konservatif olması nedenleri ile amalgapin yönteminin en başarılı yöntem olduğu sonucuna varıldı.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-ileri-derecede-madde-kaybi-bulunan-sut-azilarinda-cesitli-amalgam-tutuculuk-yontemlerinin-arastirilmasi.pdf
  • 3
201
210
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Bailey JH. Retention design for amaigam restorations: Pins versus slots J Prosthet Dent 1991: 64: 71-4.
2. Barney JI, Croll TP, Castalde CR. The slot-retained complex amalgam restoration. J Dent Child 1984: 51: 184-9.
3. Brown BR, Barkmeier WW, Anderson RW. Restoration of endodontically treated posterior teeth with amalgam. J Prosthel Dent 1979: 41: 40-4.
4. Brumfield RC. Load capacities of posterior dental bridges, JProsthet Dent. 1954:4: 530-2.
5. Buİkema DJ, Mayhew RB, Voss JE, Bales DJ. Pins and their relation to cavity resistance form for amalgam. Quintessence Int. 1985: 3: 187-90.
6. Burgess JO. Horizantal pins:study of tooth reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1985:53:317-22.
7. Butchart DG, Lloyd CH. The retention of restorative materials by self threading dentin pins. Dent Mater 1986: 2: 125-9.
8. Caputo AA, Sfandlee JP, Coilard EW. The mechanics of load transfer by retentive pins. J Prosthet Dent 1973: 29: 442.
9. Chan CC, Chan KC. The retentive strength of slots with different width and depth versus pins. J Prosthet Dent. 1987: 58: 552-7.
10. Coilard EW, Caputo AA, Standlee JP. Rational for pin-retained amalgam restorations. Dent Clin NortAm. 1970: 14: 43¬51.
11. Davis SP, Summitt JB, Mayhew RB, Hawley RJ. Self-threading pins and amalgapins compared in resistance form for complex amalgam restorations. Oper Dent 1983: 8:88-93.
12. Dilts WE, Coury TL. A conservative approach to the placement of retentive pins. Dent Clin North Am 1976: 20: 397.
13. Dilts WE, Duncanson MG, Coilard EW, Parmley LE. Retention of selfthreading pins. 7 Can Dent Assoc. 1981: 47: 119¬20.
14. Durkowski JS, Pelleu GB, Harris RK, Harper RH. Effect of diameters of self-threading pins and channel locations on enamel crazing. Oper Dent 1982: 7: 86-91.
15. Felton DA, Webb El, Kanoy BE, Cox CF. Pulpal response to threaded pin and retentive siot techniques. J Prosthet Dent 1991:66:597-602.
16. Garman TA, Binon PP, Averette D, Talman RG. Self-threading pin penetration into dentin. / Prosthet Dent. 1980: 43: 298-302.
17. Garman TA, Hawkins IK, Qutwaite WC, Smith CD. A clinical comparison of dentinal slot retention with metallic pin retention../ Am Dent Assoc 1983: 107: 762-3.
18. Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Lundeen HC. Oclusal forces during chewing and swallowing as measured by sound transmission./ Prosthet Dent 1981: 46: 443-5.
19. Gibbs CH, Mahan PE, Mauderli A. Limits of human bite strength. J Prosthet Dent. 1986:56: 226-9.
20. Gibbs CH, Whickwire NA. Comparison of typical chewing patterns in normal children and adults. J Am Dent Assoc. 1982:105: 33.
21. Goeng AC, Muenİnghoff CA. Management of the endodontically treated tooth. Part 1: Concept for restorative designs. J Prosthet Dent. 1983: 49: 340-5.
22. Goerig AC, Muenİnghoff CA. Management of the endodontically treated tooth. Part 2: technique.,/ Prosthet Dent 1983: 49: 491-7.
23. Going RE, Moffa JP, Nostrant GW, Johnson BE. The strength of dental amalgam as influenced by pins. J Am Dent As¬soc. 1968: 77: 1331.
24. Goldstein PM. Retention pins are friction lock without use of cement. J Am. Dent. Assoc. 1966: 73: 1103-6.
25.
Gülha
n A. Pedodonti ders kitabı, ikinci baskı, İstanbul Yenilik Basımevi, 1977: 223-24.
26. Helkimo E, Ingervall B. Bite force and functional state of the masticatory system in young men. Swed Dent J 1978: 2: 167.
27. Howell AH, Manly RS. Electronic strain guage for measuring oral forces. J Dent Res. 1948: 27: 705.
28. Johnson JK, Schwartz NK, Blackwell RT. Evaluation and restoration of endodonticaliy treated posterior teeth. J Am Dent Assoc. 1976:93: 597-605.
29. Kane JJ, Burgess JO, Summit JB. Fracture resistance of amalgam coronal-radicular restoration. / Prosthet Dent. 1990: 63: 607-13.
210
Aktören O.
30. Kantor ME, Pines MS. A comparative study of restorative techniques for pulpless teeth. / Prosthet Dent. 1977: 38: 405¬12.
31. Khera SC, Chan KC, Rittman BR. Dentinal crazing and in-terpin distance. / Prosthet Dent. 1978: 40: 538-43.
32. Krakow AA, Berk H. Advanced endodontic therapy in periodontics. In White GE (editor). Clinical Oral Pediatrics. Chicago: Quintessence Publishing Co. 1981.
33. Lambert RL, Goldfogel MH. Pin amalgam restoration and pin amalgam foundation. J Prosthet Dent 1985: 54:10-2.
34. Lambert RL, Moore DL, Elleston HH. In vitro retentive strength of fixed bridges constructed with acrylic pontics and an ultraviolet-light-polymerized resin. J Am Dent Assoc. 1976: 92: 740.
35. Lambert RL, Robinson FB, Lindemuth JS. Coronal rein-forcmenet with cross-splinted pin-amalgam restorations. / Prosthet Dent. 1985: 54: 346-9.
36. Leach CD, Martinoff JT, Lee CV. A second look at the amalgapin technique./Calif Dent Assoc. 1983:11: 43-9.
37. MaTkley MR. Pin retained and pin reinforced amalgam./ Am Assoc. 1966: 73: 1295-300.
38. Moffa JP, Razzano MR, Doyle MG. Pins - A comparison of their retentive properties./Am Dent Assoc. 1969: 75:529¬35.
39. Outhwaite WC, Garman TA, Pashley DH. Pin versus slot retention inextensive amalgam restorations./ Prosthet Dent. 1979: 41: 396-400.
40. Outhwaite WC, Twiggs SW, Fairhurst CW. Slots vs pins a
comparision of retention under simulated chewing stresses. / Dent Res. 1982:02:400-2.
41. Plasmas PJJM, Kusters ST, de Jonge BA, van't Hof MA, Vrijhoef MMA. In vitro resistance of extensive amalgam restorations using various retention methods. / Prosthet Dent. 1987: 57: 16-20.
42. Plasmans PJJM, Letzel H, van't Hof MA, Vrijhoef MMA. The occlusal status of extensive amalgam restorations. Quinte-sencelnt. 1987:18: 13-6.
43. Podshadley AG. Retention of threaded pins in amalgam. / Prosthet Dent. 1990: 63: 47-51.
44. Roddy WC, Rupp NW, Blank LW, Pelleu GB. Channel depth and diameter: effects on transverse strenght of amalgapin-retained restoration, Oper Dent1987:12: 2-9.
45. Shavell HM. The amalgapin technique for complex amalgam restorations. / Calif Dent Assoc. 1990: 8: 48-55.
46. Shavell HM. Updating the amalgapin technique for complex amalgam restorations. Int.JPerio Res. 1986:5: 23-35.
47. Troutman KC, Resibick MH, Berson RB, Good DL, Pulp therapy. In Stewart RE, Barber TK, Troutman KC, Wei SHY (editors). Pediatric Dentistry - Scientific foundations and clinical practice. Missouri: Mosby Co. 1982.
48. Wacker DR, Baum L. Retentive pins. Dent Clin NortAm 1985: 29: 327-40.
49. Webb EL, Staraka WF, Philips CL. Retention of self-threading pins with reduced stress from insertion. J Prosthet Dent. 1986: 56:684-8.

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