In vitro comparison of resistance to compressive forces of healthy teeth, with direct endodontics and reconstruction; and rehabilitated with a dental fiberglass posts cylindrical through the universal testing machine
Article Sidebar
Downloads
Main Article Content
Abstract
Nowadays there are different types of treatments for cavities and trauma in teeth. When the problem affects the pulp it might be needed an endodontic treatment, which causes teeth to lose a lot of dental structure during the process. It’s very important to make the right choice when a tooth needs to be restored; its prognosis depends on that. A wrong decision can cause a teeth fracture or its future extraction. A good option for tooth rehabilitation is putting a crown after an intraradicular post. The proper indications of fiber post are to retain the crown, but there are some cases in which a tooth with a post can fracture. The level of the fracture depends directly of the remaining structure of the teeth. In this study we are going to evaluate the resistance of the force in different groups of premolars restored with a direct resin and with a fiber post. It’s an in vitro study that evaluates 30 random premolars, which were divided into 3 different groups. The control group had 10 natural teeth with no cavities, fractures or with composite. The first group had an endodontic treatment with a resin composite, and the second group was endodontically treated with an intrarradicular fiber post. The three groups had compression forces applied with a 1mm/min speed and a 45º angle with a universal testing machine, Tinius Olsen. The values were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey. The results proved that the control group is statistically significant comparing to the first group. Groups 1 and 2 where statistically insignificant. Therefore, a healthy tooth shows to be the one to resists more forces. A tooth restored with fiber post will be the second one to resist more forces, and finally the one restored with composite resin only will be the worst tooth to resist forces comparing it to the previous options.
Article Details
References
De la Cruz, Y. Historia de la odontología.San José: Edición Digital. 2003.
Barrancos, J. Operatoriadental:Integraciónclínica. Buenos Aires:Panamericana. 2006.
Torabinejad, M., & Walton, R. EndodonciaPrincipios y práctica. Barcelona: Elsevier.201 0.
Segura, J. Reconstrucción de un dienteendodonciado: Propuesta de un protocolode restauración basado en la evidencia.ENDODONCIA. 2001.
Saldarriaga, E., Uribe, C., Chica, E., &Latorre, F. Distribución de los esfuerzos entramos protésicos fijos de tres unidadescon elementos intrarradiculares colados yprefabricados; análsis biometrico usandoelementos finitos. Revista de laUniversidad de la Facultad de Antoquia.2009;33 - 41.
Barguil, J., Chica, E., & Latorre, F.Distribución de los esfuerzos en tres tiposde elementos intrarradiculares condiferentes longitudes. Revista facultad deodontología de la Universidad deAntoquia. 2008;24 - 37.
Egea, S. Reconstrucción del dienteendodonciado: Propuesta de un protocolo restaurador basado en la evidencia. ENDODONCIA. 2001 ;1 9 (3):208 - 201 5.
Ferrario, V., Sforza, C., Serrao, G., Dellavia,C., & Tartagilia, G. Single tooth bite forcesin healthy young adults. Journal OralRehabilitation. 2004;31 :1 8 - 22.
Northdurft, F. P., Seidel, E., Gebhart, F.,Naumann, M., Motter, P. J., & Pospiech, P.R. The fracture behavior of premolat teethwith class II cavities restores by both directcomposite restoratios and endodonticpost systems. Journal of Dentistry. 2008;2-5.
Cedillo, J., & Espinoza, R. Nuevastendencias para la cementación de postes.Revista ADM. 201 1 ;1 96 -206.
Bolay, S., Ozturk, E., Tuncel, B., & Ertan, A.Fracture resistance of endodonticallytreated teeth restored with or withoutpost systems. Journal of Dental Sciences.201 2;7:1 48 - 1 53.1 2. Sorense, J., & Martinoff, J. Intracoronalreinforcement and coronal converge.Journal of Prostodontic Dentistry. 1 984;1 :780-785.