Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2024704271> ?p ?o ?g. }
- W2024704271 endingPage "233" @default.
- W2024704271 startingPage "227" @default.
- W2024704271 abstract "Statement of problem Luting material, surface properties, and loading conditions affect the retention of prefabricated dowels to varying degrees. Purpose The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of roughening of the dentinal walls and artificial aging on the retention of prefabricated tapered titanium dowels, using 4 different luting materials. Material and methods One-hundred twenty-eight single-rooted teeth were selected, the coronal aspect of each tooth was removed, and the remaining root received endodontic therapy. All specimens were divided into 4 groups (n = 32). Dowel spaces were prepared to a depth of 10 mm using ISO 90 rotary cutting instruments. Tapered titanium dowels were luted with the following luting materials: zinc-phosphate cement (Harvard cement), glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem EasyMix), resin composite luting agent (Panavia 21) with autopolymerizing dentin primer (ED-Primer), or a self-adhesive composite luting agent (RelyX Unicem). Both composite luting agents were used without acid etching of the canal dentin. Each luting agent was used under 2 conditions: in 1 subgroup (n = 16) the dentinal walls were not roughened, and in the other subgroup (n = 16), walls were roughened with a diamond rotary cutting instrument. Eight specimens from each subgroup were stored in water at 37°C for 3 days; the other 8 specimens were stored for 150 days and subjected to simulated aging conditions using 37,500 thermal cycles (5°C/55°C) and 300,000 mechanical loading cycles with 30 N. Dowel retention (N) was measured using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 2- and 3-way ANOVAs and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). Results The dislodged dowels were examined microscopically to evaluate mode of failure. The nonroughened dentinal walls showed no significant differences between the different luting agents. Roughening the dentinal walls increased the retention significantly for all groups. This increase was significantly higher for the resin composite groups (P=.0001). Storage for 150 days with thermal cycling and mechanical loading caused a significant decrease in dowel retention (P=.001). The failure mode was purely adhesive at the luting material–dentin interface for all dowels cemented in nonroughened root canals. A mixed failure mode, adhesive at the luting material–dentin interface and cohesive in the luting material, was observed for dowels cemented in roughened root canals. Conclusion Roughening the dentinal walls and the use of resin luting cements provided statistically significant increases in dowel retention values. Luting material, surface properties, and loading conditions affect the retention of prefabricated dowels to varying degrees. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of roughening of the dentinal walls and artificial aging on the retention of prefabricated tapered titanium dowels, using 4 different luting materials. One-hundred twenty-eight single-rooted teeth were selected, the coronal aspect of each tooth was removed, and the remaining root received endodontic therapy. All specimens were divided into 4 groups (n = 32). Dowel spaces were prepared to a depth of 10 mm using ISO 90 rotary cutting instruments. Tapered titanium dowels were luted with the following luting materials: zinc-phosphate cement (Harvard cement), glass-ionomer cement (Ketac Cem EasyMix), resin composite luting agent (Panavia 21) with autopolymerizing dentin primer (ED-Primer), or a self-adhesive composite luting agent (RelyX Unicem). Both composite luting agents were used without acid etching of the canal dentin. Each luting agent was used under 2 conditions: in 1 subgroup (n = 16) the dentinal walls were not roughened, and in the other subgroup (n = 16), walls were roughened with a diamond rotary cutting instrument. Eight specimens from each subgroup were stored in water at 37°C for 3 days; the other 8 specimens were stored for 150 days and subjected to simulated aging conditions using 37,500 thermal cycles (5°C/55°C) and 300,000 mechanical loading cycles with 30 N. Dowel retention (N) was measured using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. Data were analyzed using 2- and 3-way ANOVAs and the Tukey HSD test (α=.05). The dislodged dowels were examined microscopically to evaluate mode of failure. The nonroughened dentinal walls showed no significant differences between the different luting agents. Roughening the dentinal walls increased the retention significantly for all groups. This increase was significantly higher for the resin composite groups (P=.0001). Storage for 150 days with thermal cycling and mechanical loading caused a significant decrease in dowel retention (P=.001). The failure mode was purely adhesive at the luting material–dentin interface for all dowels cemented in nonroughened root canals. A mixed failure mode, adhesive at the luting material–dentin interface and cohesive in the luting material, was observed for dowels cemented in roughened root canals. Roughening the dentinal walls and the use of resin luting cements provided statistically significant increases in dowel retention values." @default.
- W2024704271 created "2016-06-24" @default.
- W2024704271 creator A5016448287 @default.
- W2024704271 creator A5017465122 @default.
- W2024704271 creator A5043521676 @default.
- W2024704271 date "2005-09-01" @default.
- W2024704271 modified "2023-10-15" @default.
- W2024704271 title "Comparison of titanium dowel retention using four different luting agents" @default.
- W2024704271 cites W1986644672 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W1989521877 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W1992554073 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W1993670094 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2000381312 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2001553585 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2004432311 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2012933878 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2019178266 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2021291424 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2022617289 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2027048348 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2028465717 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2033543109 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2035338667 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2046303305 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2051964207 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2052183650 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2056140677 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2060713274 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2067876182 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2068191442 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2072393076 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2074064915 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2080668699 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2081575380 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2086407317 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2104286497 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2121456835 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2131187084 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2149481068 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2151844197 @default.
- W2024704271 cites W2172068283 @default.
- W2024704271 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.05.025" @default.
- W2024704271 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16126075" @default.
- W2024704271 hasPublicationYear "2005" @default.
- W2024704271 type Work @default.
- W2024704271 sameAs 2024704271 @default.
- W2024704271 citedByCount "39" @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712012 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712013 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712014 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712015 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712016 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712019 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712020 @default.
- W2024704271 countsByYear W20247042712022 @default.
- W2024704271 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2024704271 hasAuthorship W2024704271A5016448287 @default.
- W2024704271 hasAuthorship W2024704271A5017465122 @default.
- W2024704271 hasAuthorship W2024704271A5043521676 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C104779481 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C112950240 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C159096172 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C159985019 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C178405089 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C180478085 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C183300977 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C192562407 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C199343813 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C2776266710 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C2779227376 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C2779263046 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C2779627239 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C2779747767 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C523993062 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C68928338 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C104779481 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C112950240 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C159096172 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C159985019 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C178405089 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C180478085 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C183300977 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C192562407 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C199343813 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C2776266710 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C2779227376 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C2779263046 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C2779627239 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C2779747767 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C523993062 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C68928338 @default.
- W2024704271 hasConceptScore W2024704271C71924100 @default.
- W2024704271 hasIssue "3" @default.
- W2024704271 hasLocation W20247042711 @default.
- W2024704271 hasLocation W20247042712 @default.
- W2024704271 hasOpenAccess W2024704271 @default.
- W2024704271 hasPrimaryLocation W20247042711 @default.