Push-Out Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Flowable Composite Luting Systems on Glass Fiber Post of Root Canal
Background: Posts that have been properly fitted can withstand torsion forces and so provide better retention. The push-out bonding strength of glass fiber posts to the root canal was evaluated using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite (FC). Method: Forty single-rooted...
Guardado en:
| Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN |
| Publicado: |
MDPI AG
2021
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/2b7b5dda3d41479c987c61cf76a4d83c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | Background: Posts that have been properly fitted can withstand torsion forces and so provide better retention. The push-out bonding strength of glass fiber posts to the root canal was evaluated using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and flowable composite (FC). Method: Forty single-rooted maxillary central incisors were used in the study. The samples were randomly divided into two groups of 20 teeth each. The crown-down procedure was used to clean and shape the pulp area. A Tenax fiber trans Coltene whaletene post was used by both groups. The first group utilized FC (Filtek Z 350 3M ESPE) to coat the post, whereas the second group used RMGIC (Rely X 3M ESPE). The specimens were cross-sectioned after 24 h. Specimens were cross-sectioned four millimeters thick into coronal and middle parts using a sectioning machine, yielding 40 specimens per group. The strength of the bond between the luting cement and the posts was measured using push-out bond strength testing. We loaded the components at a cross speed of 0.5 mm/min on a universal testing machine until the bond failed. Results: The FC group had a 4.80 N push-out bond strength, whereas the RMGIC group had a 7.11 N push-out bond strength. Conclusion: FC’s mean push-out bond strength score is lower than RMGIC’s. |
|---|