• Users Online: 50
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 62-65

Comparative analysis of fracture resistance of two different glass-fiber postsystems: An in vitro study


1 Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AMC Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India
2 Assistant Professor, Department of Dental and Implant Surgery, Shree Krishna Medical College and Hospital, Karamsad, Gujara, India
3 Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Narsinhbhai Patel Dental College and Hospital, Visnagar, Gujarat, India
4 Senior Lecturer, Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India
5 Senior Lecturer, Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, College of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Ahmedabad, Gujarat, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Rajendra Bharatiya
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, AMC Dental College and Hospital, Ahmedabad, Gujarat
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/INPC.INPC_34_19xs

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of root fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with two different types of glass-fiber posts luted with glass-ionomer cement (GIC). Materials and Methods: Forty maxillary central incisors were sectioned at 1 mm of the cementoenamel junction and endodontically treated. The teeth were divided into two groups (n = 20) where Group I included teeth restored with Reforpost (No. 1, Angelus, Brazil) and Group II with Selfpost (Size 1, Medicept, UK). The posts were luted with GIC, and core built up was done using composite resin. The fracture strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine. The data obtained were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. Results: The comparison of the mean strength required (in Newtons) to fracture the teeth was higher in Group I that is Reforpost than Group II (Selfpost) implicating highly significant differences in their fracture resistance (P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion: The conclusion drawn was that Group I (Reforpost post) exhibited better resistance to fracture than that of Group II (Selfpost post).


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed156    
    Printed12    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded20    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal