IN VITRO EVALUATION OF THE RESISTANCE OF THREE DIFFERENT POST SYSTEMS AGAINST FUNCTIONAL FORCES

Yıl 2023, Cilt: 10 Sayı: 1, 48 - 56, 27.04.2023

Mustafa Kocacıklı

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.1238859

Öz

Background: In order to ensure sufficient resistance against functional forces for dentin, which is severely weakened by excessive material loss in single-root single-canal teeth with previous root canal treatment, maximum retention and resistance must be the target.

The main purpose of this study is to evaluate the shear rupture resistance of the chosen three kinds of posts placed in the teeth roots, against forces that could occur in the replicated mouth.

Methods: Freshly extracted 45 teeth -maxillary canin and maxillary central- have been used in our study. Crown portion of the tooth was removed by cutting away 1 mm over the enamel cement junction. Root canals were obturated with a lateral condensation technique using AH-26 and gutta percha sealer. In the study, 15 specimens each from Flexi-Post, Cosmopost, and FRC Postec post systems have been placed in sockets opened down through teeth by using specific burs for each system. A dual cured composite cement (Variolink II low viscosity) was used to bind posts. Prepared specimens were put in steel hose by using acrylic resin. Standardized core material (Coradent) was applied onto top side of posts, and steel hoses were connected to Lloyd test instrument with an angle of 45 degrees. A force with a speed of 1 mm/min was applied to the specimens. Compression shear rupture values were recorded and One Way ANOVA and Kruskall-Wallis variance analyses were conducted for statistical evaluation.
Results and Conclusion: Highest values were obtained in Flexi-Post group. FRC Postec was the second, and Cosmopost had the lowest strength values. However, all the systems provided adequate resistance against forces that could occur in the mouth, hence it was concluded that they can be utilized clinically.

Key words: posts and cores, post system, prefabricated post systems

Anahtar Kelimeler

posts and cores, post system, prefabricated post systems

ÜÇ FARKLI POST SİSTEMİNİN AĞIZ İÇİNDE OLUŞABİLECEK KUVVETLERE KARŞI DAYANCININ İN VİTRO DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Öz

Öz: Tek köklü, tek kanallı ve kanal tedavisi uygulanmış dişlerde aşırı madde kaybı nedeniyle yapısı zayıflayan dentinin fonksiyonel kuvvetlere karşı yeterli dayanıklılık gösterebilmesi için seçilecek uygun bir post sistemiyle en fazla retansiyon ve rezistans sağlamaya çalışılmalıdır.

Amaç: Bu çalışmada amaç diş köklerine yerleştirilen seçilmiş üç çeşit postun ağız içinde oluşabilecek makaslama kuvvetlerine karşı kırılma dayançlarının değerlendirilmesidir.

Gereç ve yöntemler: Çalışmamızda yeni çekilmiş 45 adet üst-kanin ve santral diş kullanılmıştır. Dişlerin kron bölümü mine-sement birleşiminin 1mm üzerinden kesilerek uzaklaştırılmıştır. Kök kanalları lateral kondensasyon tekniği ile guta perka ve AH-26 kanal dolgu maddeleri kullanılarak doldurulmuştur. Çalışmada Flexi-Post, Cosmopost ve FRC Postec post sistemlerinden 15 er adet örnek kendi drilleri kullanılarak dişlerde açılmış yuvalarına yerleştirmek suretiyle hazırlandı. Postların yapıştırılmasında dual cure kompozit bir siman olan Variolink II low viskozite kullanıldı. Hazırlanan örnekler akrilik rezin kullanılarak çelik manşet içine alındı. Postların üzerine standardize edilmiş Coradent core materyali uyglandıktan sonra manşetler 45 derece açıyla Lloyd test cihazına bağlandı. Örneklere test cihazında 1mm/dakika hızla kuvvet uygulandı. Uygulanan makaslamada kırılma testi sonucunda her örnek için kırılma kuvveti değerleri kaydedilerek istatistiksel değerlendirme yapıldı.

Sonuç: En fazla dayancı Flexi-Post gösterdi. İkinci derecede dayancı FRC Postec gösterirken en az dayancı da Cosmopost gösterdi. Ancak yapılan değerlendirmede her üç post sisteminin de ağızda oluşabilecek kuvvetlere karşı yeterli dayancı gösterebileceği ve klinik olarak da kullanılabileceği sonucuna varıldı.
Anahtar kelimeler: post sistemi, post ve corelar, prefabrike post sistemleri

Anahtar Kelimeler

post sistemi, post ve corelar, prefabrike post sistemleri

Kaynakça

• 1. KEYF F. Flexi-Post’un Çekme ve Basma Kesme Kuvvetlerine Karşı Retansiyonunun Diğer İki Prefabrik Post- Core Sistemiyle Karşılaştırılması. (thesis) Ankara: Hacettepe Üniv.; 1990.
• 2. SARAÇ ŞY. İki Farklı Kanal Dolgu Patı İle Doldurulmuş Dişlerde Değişik Post Boşluğu Hazırlama Yöntemlerinin Apikal Sızdırmazlığa Etkisinin Spektrofotometrik Yöntem İle İncelenmesi. (thesis) Ankara: Hacettepe Üniv. ; 1995.
• 3. TJAN AHL, ABBATE, MF. Temperature Rise at Root Surface During Post Space Preparation. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:41-5.
• 4. AKKAYAN B, CANİKLİOĞLU, M. B. Farklı Post Tiplerinin Kök Kırıklarına Etkileri ve Post Seçim Kriterleri. Hacettepe Dişhekimliği Dergisi. 1997;21:75-84.
• 5. MORGANO SM, Mılot P. Clinical Success of Cast-Metal Posts and Cores. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;70:11-6.
• 6. YOLDAŞ HO. Aşırı Harabiyet Gösteren Diş Köklerinin Işık İleten Post Sistemiyle Restore Edilmesi. (thesis) Ankara: Gazi Üniv; 1998.
• 7. DESORT KD. The Prosthodontic Use of Endodontically Treated Teeth; Theory and Biomechanics of Post Preparation. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:203-6.
• 8. ZIEBERT AJ, DHURU, V. B. The Fracture Toughness of Core Materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;4:33-7.
• 9. Sorensen JA MJ. Intracoronal reinforcement and coronal coverage: a study of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:780-4.
• 10. INGLE JI, TEEL, S., WANDS, D. H. Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth and Preparation for Overdenture. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1994.
• 11. REOSENSTIEL SF, LAND, M. F., FUJIMOTO, J. Contemporary Fixed Prosthodontics. 2 ed. St. Louis: Mosby Co.; 1995.
• 12. RUEMPING DR, LUMD, M. R., SCHIRNEL, R. J. Retention of Dowels Subjected To Tensile and Torsional Forces. J Prosthet Dent. 1979;41:159-63.
• 13. ALAÇAM T, NALBANT, L., ALAÇAM, A. İleri Restorasyon Teknikleri. 1 ed. Ankara Polat Yayınları; 1998.
• 14. COHEN BI, CONDOS, S., MUSIKANT, B. L., DEUTSCH, A. S. Retention Properties of a Splint Shaft Threaded Post Cut at Different Apical Lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:894-8.
• 15. COHEN BI, CONDOS, S., MUSIKANT, B. L., DEUTSCH, A. S. Comparison of Retentive Properties of Four Post Systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;68:264-8.
• 16. DEUTSCH AS, MUSIKANT, B. L., CAVALLARI, J., BENARDI, S. Retentive Properties of a New Post and Core System. J Prosthet Dent. 1985;53:12-4.
• 17. FOVET Y, POURREYSON, L., GAL, J. Y. Corrosion by Galvanic Coupling Between Carbon Fiber Posts and Different Alloys. Dental Materials. 2000;16:364-73.
• 18. TRABERT KC, CONNEY, J. P. The Endodontically Treated Tooth. Dent Clin North Amer. 1984;28:923-51.
• 19. GOLDMAN M, DE VITRE, R., PIER, M. Effect of The Dentin Smeared Layer on Tensile of Cemented Posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;52:485-8.
• 20. TROPE M, MALTZ, D. O., TRONSTAD, L. Resistance to Fractures of Restored Endodontically Treated Teeth. Endodon Dent Traumatol. 1985;1:108-11.
• 21. STANDLEE J, CAPUTO, AA., HANSON, EC. Retention of Endodontic Dowels Effects of Cement Dowel Length Diameter and Design. J Prosthet Dent. 1978;39:400-5.
• 22. DEUTSCH AS, MUSIKANT, B. L., CAVALARI, S., LEPLEY, J. B. Prefabricated Dowels a Literature Review. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:498-503.
• 23. COHEN BI, PAGNILLO, M. K., NEWMAN, I., MUSIKANT, B. L., DEUTSCH, A. S. Retention of a Core Material Supported by Three Post Head Designs,. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;83:624-8.
• 24. COHEN BI, PENUGONDA, B., PAGNILLO, M. K., SCHULMAN, A., HITTELMAN, E. Torsional Resistance of Crowns Cemented to Composite Cores Involving Three Stainless Steel Post Designs,. J Prosthet Dent. 2000;84:28-42.
• 25. BURGESS JO, SUMMITT, J. B., ROBBINS, J. W. The Resistance to Tensile Compression and Torsional Forces Provided by Four Post Systems: Quintessence Int.; 1988.
• 26. COHEN BI, CONDOS, S., DEUTSCH, A. S., MUSIKANT, B. L. Fracture Strength of Three Different Core Materials in Combination with Three Different Endodontic Posts. Int J Prosthodont. 1994;7:178-82.
• 27. COHEN BI, CONDOS, S., MUSIKANT, B. L., DEUTSCH, A. S. Pilot Study Comparing the Photoelastic Stress Distribution for Four Endodontic Post Systems. J Oral Rehabil. 1996;23:679-85.
• 28. COHEN BI, PAGNILLO, M. K., CONDOS, S., DEUTSCH, A. S. Four Different Core Materials Measured for Fracture Strength in Combination with Five Different Designs of Endodontic Posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;76:487-95.
• 29. COHEN BI, PAGNILLO, M. K., NEWMAN, I., MUSIKANT, B. L., DEUTSCH, A. S. Retention of Three Endodontic Posts Cemented with Five Dental Cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1998;79:520-5.
• 30. GREENFELD RS, ROYDHOUSE, R. H., MARSHALL, F. J., SCHONER, B. A Comparison of Two Post-Core Systems under Applied Compressive Shear Loads. J Prosthet Dent. 1989;61:17-24.
• 31. LEPE X, BALES, D. J., JOHNSON, G. H. Tensile Dislodgement Evaluation of Two Experimental Prefabricated Post Systems. Oper Dent. 1996;21:209-12.
• 32. WILSON NH, SETCOS, J. C., DUMMER, P. M., GORMAN, D. G., HOPWOOD, W. A., SOUNDERS, W. P., HUGHLOCK, R. J., HUNTER, M. J. A Split Shank Prefabricated Post System; A Critical Multidisciplinary Review. Quint Int. 1997;28:737-43.
• 33. PURTON DG, PAYNE, J. A. Comparison of Carbon Fiber and Stainless Steel Root Canal Posts. Quint Int. 1996;27:93-7.
• 34. VIGULE G, MALQUARTI, G., VINCENT, B., BOURGEOIS, D. Epoxy Carbon Composite Resins in Dentistry; Mechanical Properties Related to Fiber Reinforcements. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72:245-9.
• 35. SIRIMAI S, RIIS, D. N., MORGANO, S. M. An Invıtro Study of the Fracture Resistance and Incıdance of Vertical Root Fracture of Pulpless Teeth Restored with Six Post and Core Systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1999;81:262-9.
• 36. CORMIER CJ, BURNS, D. R., MOO, P. In vitro Comparison of the Fracture Resistance and Failure Mode of Fiber, Ceramicand Conventional Post Systems at Various Stages of Restorations. J Prosthet Dent. 2001;10:26-36.
• 37. LUI JL. A Technique to reinforce Weakened Roots With Post Canals. Endodon Dent Traumatol. 1987;3:310-4.
• 38. SIDOLI CE, KING, P. A., SETCHEL, D. J. An Invitro Evaluation of a Carbon Fiber Based Post and Core System. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:5-9.
• 39. PATEL A, GUTTEİDGE, D. L. An In Vitro Investigation of Cast Post and Partial Core Design. J Of Dentistry. 1996;24:281-7.
• 40. MENDOZA DB, EAKLE, W. S., KAHL, E. A. HO, R. Root Reinforcement with a Resin Bonded Preformed Post. J Prosthet Dent. 1997;78:10-4.
• 41. MOWAFY OME, MILENKOVIC, M. Retention of Paraposts Cemented With Dentin Bonded Resin Cements. Oper Dent. 1994;19:176-82.
• 42. TJAN AHL, TJAN, A. H., GREIVE J. H. Effects of Various Cementation Methods on The Retentive of Prefabricated Posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1987;58:309-13.
• 43. MANSFİELD B, GALLBURT, R., ABOUSHALA, A. Tensile Bond Strength Comparison for Endodontic Posts and Luting Agents. J Dent Res. 1997;76:69.
• 44. MORGANO SM. Restoration of Pulpless Teeth Aplication Of Traditional Principals İn Present and Future Contexts. J Prosthet Dent. 1996;75:379-80.
• 45. MENDOZA DB, EAKLE, W. S. Retention of Post Cemented with Various Dentin Bonding Cements. J Prosthet Dent. 1994;72:591-4.
• 46. WOOD WW. Retention of Posts in Teeth with Nonvital Pulps. J Prosthet Dent. 1983;49:504-6.
• 47. GOLDMAN M. An SEM Study of Posts Cemented With Unfilled Resin. J Prosthet Dent. 1984;63:1003-5.
• 48. SCHILLINGBURG HT, HOBO, S., WHITSETT, L. D., JACOBI, R., BRACKETT, S. E. Fundamentals of Fixed Prosthodontics. 3 ed. Chicago: Quıntessence Co.; 1997.
• 49. KWAN EH, HARRRİNGTON, G. W. The Effect of Immadiate Post Preparation on Apical Seal. J Endodon. 1981;7:325-9.
• 50. ASSIF D, FERBER, A. Retention of Dowels Using a Composite Resin as a Cementing Medium. J Prosthet Dent. 1992;48:292-6.
• 51. COHEN BI, PAGNILLO, M. K., CONDOS, S., DEUTSCH, A. S. Comparison of The Torsional Forces of Failure for Seven Endodontic Post Systems,. J Prosthet Dent. 1995;74:350-7.
• 52. CHARBENGOU GT. Principles and Practise of Operative Dentistry. 3 ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 1998.
• 53. SHEETS C. Dowels and Core Foundations. J Prosthet Dent. 1970;23:58-67.
• 54. WALTON RE, TORABINEJAD, M. Principles and Practise of Endodontics. Philadelphia: W. B. Saunders Co.; 1989.
• 55. GUZY GE, NICHOLLS, J. I. In vitro Comparison of Intact Endodontically Treated Teeth With and Without Endo-Post Reinforcement. J Prosthet Dent 1979;42:39-44.
• 56. KANTOR ME, PINES, M. S. A Comperative Study of Restorative Techniques for Pulpless Teeth. J Prosthet Dent. 1977;38:405-12.
• 57. ASSIF D, BITENSKI, A., PILO, R., OREN, E. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1993;69:36-40.
• 58. STANDLEE JP, CAPUTO, A. A. Endodontic Dowel Retention with Resin Luting Systems. J Dent Res. 1994;70:446-8.