Oiginal articles

Annals and Essences of Dentistry
doi:10.5368/aedj.2011.3.2.1.6

A COMPARISON OF BOND STRENGTHS OF AMALGAM, COMPOSITE AND GLASS CERMET CORES WHEN RESTORED WITH A PREFABRICATED PARALLEL POST – AN INVITRO STUDY
1

Amarendher Reddy 2 Baiju Gopalan Nair 3 Prathap Kumar M 4 Nagalakshmi Reddy S
1,2,4 3,

1 2 3 4

professor professor and Head. professor Senior Lecturer

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, G. Pulla Reddy Dental College, Kurnool, Andhra Pradesh. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Meghana Dental college,Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh.

ABSTRACT Dentists have come to realize that with proper endodontic therapy and adequate restoration, pulpless teeth can continue indefinitely as an integral part of the dental apparatus. And yet endodontic therapy should not be done on teeth that can not be restored. In this study 45 freshly extracted maxillary premolars were restored with prefabricated parallel post and subsequently restored with Amalgam, composite and Glass cermet. The teeth in each of the restoration groups were allocated to three different loading conditions, load at an angle of 100, 45 0 and 900 to long axis of the specimen. It is observed that glass cermet core showed a mean failure load that was lower for all three loading conditions than those of Amalgam and composite cores. The aim of the study was to compare the bond strengths of Amalgam, composite and glass cermet cores restored with a pre-fabricated parallel post when subjected to simulated occlusal forces from varying angles.

KEY WORDS:. Pre fabricated posts, Root canal treatment Bond Strength INTRODUCTION
Restoration of endodontically treated teeth continues to present a challenge to clinicians. When a significant portion of the coronal tooth structure has been lost, supplemental forms of retention are necessary to retain a 1 core upon which a full coverage casting may be placed . Traditionally the cast post and core has been the means of restoring these teeth. Alternate forms of core retention such as pins and prefabricated endodontic posts have outperformed these custom posts and cores in vitro tests2 . Reinforced glass ionomer cement is available in two forms 1) glass ionomer cement with admixed amalgam alloy particles (e.g. miracle mix, G.C. Int. Corp. Tokyo) and 2) a glass cermet having silver particles sintered to the glass powder (e.g. Ketac – Silver ESPE GmbH 3 Seefled, Germany) . Although the materials are termed “reinforced” no improvement in either the compressive, tensile or bonding strength has been found. Although subsequent to coronal coverage the strength of a glass cermet appears to be adequate if it is sufficiently retained by a post or pins4 . For maximum retention a post should be parallel, serrated or threaded with sufficient length. To prevent unfavourable stress conditions, a self threading or tapered post should not be used and larger post 5 diameters might be preferable .However the most important factor in preventing root fracture is preservation of tooth material thus dictating the use of thinnest post that still has adequate retention. Post length is limited by anatomical factors such as root shape and curvature, and by the need for an apical seal that should be minimally 6 3mm or more, ideally 5 mm or more . Maxillary premolars have features that influence the possibilities for post and core restorations and their failure behaviour. Their roots are among the slenderest in the human dentition limiting the diameter of a post to about 1 mm7. The aim of the study was to compare the bond strengths of Amalgam, composite and glass cermet cores restored with a pre-fabricated parallel post when subjected to simulated occlusal forces from varying angles. Materials and Methods Forty five freshly extracted healthy human maxillary premolar teeth were selected having a Root length of 12 mm or more. The smallest root cross section at 8 mm from cemento enamel junction is 2 mm or more. Sample Preparation :The coronal part of each tooth was removed using diamond disc. The samples were biomechanically prepared upto the size 40 K file, the roots were filled with gutta percha points using lateral condensation technique. (Fig.1 and Fig.2). The tooth is embedded in acrylic cylinders in such a position that future post would coincide with central axis of cylinder.

Vol. - III

Issue 2 Apr – jun 2011

29

4 Group C samples after restoration Fig.1 Sample preparation Fig.3 Group A samples after restoration Fig. .6 . Loading at 90 degrees with Instron machine.III Issue 2 Apr – jun 2011 30 .Oiginal articles Annals and Essences of Dentistry Fig. Vol.5 Group G samples after restoration Fig.2 Sample with post fixation done Fig.

2.1. .III Issue 2 Apr – jun 2011 31 . Mean and standard deviation of the three group of materials Table. Mean failure loads of the three group of materials Table.4 Multiple Comparisons Vol.Oiginal articles Annals and Essences of Dentistry Table.3 Anova-‘F’ Test Table.

In this study the groupG displayed a mean failure load that was lower for all three loading conditions than those of group-A and group- 6. K.x 4.47. & Bryant. Llyod C.1992.401-406 doi:10. For 45 and 90 there is no significant difference between amalgam and composite. Endo. 0 For 10 loading mean failure load was high for Group A than Group C.H.177-181. All the teeth received post space preparation 8 mm into the root. The angle of load application strongly influenced Mean failure load.C. Standlee J. 10. J.450 and 900 a gradual change from compressive to 3 shear loading accrued .1016/0022-3913(82) 90183-4 2.N. Dent (1978). 7. Lloyd and Butchart found that the failure of glass cermet is significantly lower than either amalgam or 8 composite . 0 0 3. The use of glass cermet as a core material is controversial. Ph: 09849008623.P. Shilling burg H. dowel length.W. Materials (1990).1016/0022-3913(82)900749 3.6) Annals and Essences of Dentistry C. 22531. Which is in agreement with the present study findings. 48.co. : A comparative evaluation of three post and core techniques. The difference in failure mode between group A and 0 group C with 10 loading alone is insufficient for expressing a preference for either material. Group C – composite core. Mattison G. Ten degrees loading was an 3 approximation of simple occlusal forces on premolars . Llyod C.1365-2591. In the present study Zinc phosphate has been used for post fixation. Results The results were tabulated. 87-93. G. The letter in the group code indicates core material. doi:10. Hysmans & M. The fracture toughness of the silver containing glass ionomer is inferior to amalgam9. 401-405.doi:10.5) Testing procedure : The teeth in each of the restoration groups were allocated to 3 different loading conditions.( Fig. of California Dental Association (1982). Dent (1982). As the loading angle increased from 100 . J. J. Forces from articulation movements were represented by 0 3 the 45 loading condition . .M.G.1016/S0109-5641(87)80077-5 10.P.1016/S0022-3913(78)801565 Discussion Prefabricated parallel post have been proved to be better than custom cast posts and cores in the studies conducted by Nicholls (1977) and Chan R. The use of Glass cermet as a core material resulted in a lower failure load than when amalgam and composite resin in all loading conditions (100 . For 10 loading amalgam proved better than composite. IRIE & NAKAI.M compared the fracture strength and fracture toughness in posterior restorative materials. Other considerations such as ease of procedure and acceptability of discolorations will influence the choice of material in individual situations. 5. Dent. Materials (1988). & Adam Son.H : Mechanical properties of silver added glass ionomers and their bond strength. The teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups. Kurnool.W. Dent (1982).T.H.1111/j. Kovarik : Restoration of endo dontically treated teeth. J. Fig. M : The development of fracture toughness and fracture strength in posterior restorative materials. Prosthet.Prosthet. M. : Retention of core composites.H. Robert E. Prosther.450 and 900) 0 2. Llyod C.R. Chan. (1989).1016/01095641(90)90027-C 9. Results showed Zinc phosphate was most retentive than polycarboxylate and 10 composite resin . Amarendher Reddy Professor Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics. Dent.III Issue 2 Apr – jun 2011 32 . 151-156. A.B. Hoag E. doi:10.48. After 48 hrs of storage testing took place in instron universal testing machine. Endo.3. 7. 39. Journal (1992). & Caputo A. 3.P. 450 and 900 to long axis of the specimen thus in total there were 9 experimental groups.C. Ryle A. 8.: Post core foundations for endodontically treated posterior teeth. & Dwyer T. 43-49. and Bryant 2 (1982) .A : Retention of endodontic dowels : Effect of cement. J.Oiginal articles Post space preparation was done using peeso drill size 3. 185-188. 51. Radke. 554-61. SUMMARY and CONCLUSION : 1. Extreme situations and the horizontal components of clinical forces were represented by the 900 loading condition. & Hasel. 6. & Butchert G. Pulla Reddy Dental College. Prosthet. Results are subjected to Anova ‘f’ test in Table – III and multiple comparisons in Table – IV From the above readings it is observed that group G showed a mean failure load that was lower for all three loading conditions than those of Group A and Group C. E-mail: akuchanpally@yahoo. References 1. Mean and standard deviation of 3 group of materials are represented in Table – II ..Rehmat compared the relative retentive value of three commonly used cements. Adamson. Dent. Peters : Failure characteristics of premolars with post cores. R. J.R. Table – I represents mean failure loads of the three group of materials. : Root dimensions and dowel size. : Effect of post preparation on the apical seal. Materials (1987). For 450 loading there is no significant difference between Group A and Group C. glass cermets by self threading pin. doi:10. Dent (1984). PMid:1399060 doi:10. Int.4 and Fig. A size 1 stainless steel pre fabricated post cemented with Zinc phosphate cement.tb00774. A. In the present study it was observed that fracture of the Group G is about 1/4 to 1/3 of that of Group A and Group C. Group G – Glass cerment core. ( Fig. 121-126.in Vol. Corresponding Author Dr. 56. Group A – Amalgam core.D. load at an angle of 10 0.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful