{"title":"树脂基陶瓷桩核与预制纤维增强复合桩核在非卡箍效应牙中的抗断裂性能比较","authors":"Keeratikarn Kunawongkrit, Basel Mahardawi, Pheeradej Na Nan, Palawat Laoharungpisit, Kwanchanok Ratanakupt, Napapa Aimjirakul","doi":"10.1055/s-0044-1789001","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This research studies the fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with two types of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart) post and core compared with the conventional prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post and core.Thirty single-root-canal premolars were sectioned to 13 mm root length and then all the roots were filled, using a crown-down technique for root canal preparation and one cone technique for root canal obturation, All the roots were randomly divided into three groups (<i>n</i> = 10) according to post and core material; (1) Enamic group (EN), (2) Cerasmart group (CM), and (3) prefabricated fiber post group (FRC). Three groups of specimens were tested using a universal testing machine (EZ Test Series, Shimadzu, Japan). Specimen blocks were fixed into a holder with an inclination of 45 degrees. The force was loaded to a palatal incline of buccal cusp at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until there was split or fracture of the tooth. The maximum braking force was recorded in Newton (N), and the mode of failure was observed by a stereomicroscope.The dependent variable was fracture resistance (maximum breaking force) and the data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and then multiple comparison Tukey's tests were used, aiming to find means that are significantly different among the groups. Moreover, the failure mode was analyzed using the chi-square test.A significant difference was recorded. Teeth restored with prefabricated FRC had the most fracture resistance 342.19 ± 79.34 N (<i>p</i> = 0.007), followed by the resin matrix ceramic group (265.10 ± 48.58 N: Cerasmart) and Enamic group (260.98 ± 43.96 N: Enamic). No significant difference between the Enamic and Cerasmart groups was noted. Additionally, no significant difference in the mode of failure was recorded among the three groups.The fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with the conventional prefabricated FRC post and core is greater than that restored with either type of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart). This explains the higher failure rate resulting from the use of resin matrix ceramics.</p>","PeriodicalId":12028,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Dentistry","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fracture Resistance of Resin Matrix Ceramic Post and Core Compared to Prefabricated Fiber-Reinforced Composite Post and Core in Non-Ferrule Effect Teeth: An In Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Keeratikarn Kunawongkrit, Basel Mahardawi, Pheeradej Na Nan, Palawat Laoharungpisit, Kwanchanok Ratanakupt, Napapa Aimjirakul\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0044-1789001\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This research studies the fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with two types of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart) post and core compared with the conventional prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post and core.Thirty single-root-canal premolars were sectioned to 13 mm root length and then all the roots were filled, using a crown-down technique for root canal preparation and one cone technique for root canal obturation, All the roots were randomly divided into three groups (<i>n</i> = 10) according to post and core material; (1) Enamic group (EN), (2) Cerasmart group (CM), and (3) prefabricated fiber post group (FRC). Three groups of specimens were tested using a universal testing machine (EZ Test Series, Shimadzu, Japan). Specimen blocks were fixed into a holder with an inclination of 45 degrees. The force was loaded to a palatal incline of buccal cusp at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until there was split or fracture of the tooth. The maximum braking force was recorded in Newton (N), and the mode of failure was observed by a stereomicroscope.The dependent variable was fracture resistance (maximum breaking force) and the data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and then multiple comparison Tukey's tests were used, aiming to find means that are significantly different among the groups. Moreover, the failure mode was analyzed using the chi-square test.A significant difference was recorded. Teeth restored with prefabricated FRC had the most fracture resistance 342.19 ± 79.34 N (<i>p</i> = 0.007), followed by the resin matrix ceramic group (265.10 ± 48.58 N: Cerasmart) and Enamic group (260.98 ± 43.96 N: Enamic). No significant difference between the Enamic and Cerasmart groups was noted. Additionally, no significant difference in the mode of failure was recorded among the three groups.The fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with the conventional prefabricated FRC post and core is greater than that restored with either type of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart). This explains the higher failure rate resulting from the use of resin matrix ceramics.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12028,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1789001\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0044-1789001","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
本研究研究了两种树脂基陶瓷(Enamic和Cerasmart)桩核与传统预制纤维增强复合材料(FRC)桩核修复的非卡箍根管治疗牙齿的抗断裂性。将30颗单根管前磨牙切至根长13mm,采用冠下技术进行根管预备,一锥体技术进行根管封闭,根据桩核材料随机分为3组(n = 10);(1)搪瓷组(EN),(2)陶瓷组(CM),(3)预制纤维桩组(FRC)。三组试样采用万能试验机(EZ Test Series, Shimadzu, Japan)进行试验。将标本块固定在倾斜45度的支架上。以0.5 mm/min的十字速度将力加载到牙尖腭倾斜处,直至牙齿裂开或断裂。以牛顿(N)为单位记录最大制动力,并用体视显微镜观察失效模式。因变量为断裂抗力(最大断裂力),数据分析采用单因素方差分析,再采用多重比较Tukey检验,寻找组间存在显著差异的均值。采用卡方检验对失效模式进行了分析。记录了显著的差异。预制FRC修复牙体的抗折强度最高,为342.19±79.34 N (p = 0.007),其次为树脂基陶瓷组(265.10±48.58 N: Cerasmart)和珐琅质组(260.98±43.96 N: Enamic)。在Enamic组和Cerasmart组之间没有明显差异。此外,三组之间的失败模式无显著差异。传统预制FRC桩核修复的非卡箍根管治疗牙的抗断裂性比两种树脂基陶瓷(搪瓷和Cerasmart)修复的强。这解释了使用树脂基陶瓷导致的较高故障率。
Fracture Resistance of Resin Matrix Ceramic Post and Core Compared to Prefabricated Fiber-Reinforced Composite Post and Core in Non-Ferrule Effect Teeth: An In Vitro Study.
This research studies the fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with two types of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart) post and core compared with the conventional prefabricated fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) post and core.Thirty single-root-canal premolars were sectioned to 13 mm root length and then all the roots were filled, using a crown-down technique for root canal preparation and one cone technique for root canal obturation, All the roots were randomly divided into three groups (n = 10) according to post and core material; (1) Enamic group (EN), (2) Cerasmart group (CM), and (3) prefabricated fiber post group (FRC). Three groups of specimens were tested using a universal testing machine (EZ Test Series, Shimadzu, Japan). Specimen blocks were fixed into a holder with an inclination of 45 degrees. The force was loaded to a palatal incline of buccal cusp at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/minute until there was split or fracture of the tooth. The maximum braking force was recorded in Newton (N), and the mode of failure was observed by a stereomicroscope.The dependent variable was fracture resistance (maximum breaking force) and the data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and then multiple comparison Tukey's tests were used, aiming to find means that are significantly different among the groups. Moreover, the failure mode was analyzed using the chi-square test.A significant difference was recorded. Teeth restored with prefabricated FRC had the most fracture resistance 342.19 ± 79.34 N (p = 0.007), followed by the resin matrix ceramic group (265.10 ± 48.58 N: Cerasmart) and Enamic group (260.98 ± 43.96 N: Enamic). No significant difference between the Enamic and Cerasmart groups was noted. Additionally, no significant difference in the mode of failure was recorded among the three groups.The fracture resistance of a non-ferrule endodontically treated tooth restored with the conventional prefabricated FRC post and core is greater than that restored with either type of resin matrix ceramic (Enamic and Cerasmart). This explains the higher failure rate resulting from the use of resin matrix ceramics.
期刊介绍:
The European Journal of Dentistry is the official journal of the Dental Investigations Society, based in Turkey. It is a double-blinded peer-reviewed, Open Access, multi-disciplinary international journal addressing various aspects of dentistry. The journal''s board consists of eminent investigators in dentistry from across the globe and presents an ideal international composition. The journal encourages its authors to submit original investigations, reviews, and reports addressing various divisions of dentistry including oral pathology, prosthodontics, endodontics, orthodontics etc. It is available both online and in print.