桁架根管通道牙体抗折性的体外研究及文献综述

Q4 Dentistry
M. Karobari, A. Abdul Aziz, Saleem D Makandar, N. A. Abdul Ghani, M. Halim, T. Noorani
{"title":"桁架根管通道牙体抗折性的体外研究及文献综述","authors":"M. Karobari, A. Abdul Aziz, Saleem D Makandar, N. A. Abdul Ghani, M. Halim, T. Noorani","doi":"10.1055/s-0041-1732780","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Objective This article evaluates the fracture resistance of teeth with different endodontic access cavities and conducts literature review on the effects of truss endodontic cavity. Material and Methods Eighty human mandibular first molars were assigned randomly to four groups (n = 20); group 1: truss access cavity (TrussAC); group 2: conservative access cavity (ConsAC); group 3: traditional access cavity (TradAC); and group 4: served as control (no access). Accesses were prepared in groups 1 to 3, respectively. Endodontic treatment was performed on all accessed teeth and composite restoration placed. Teeth in all groups were loaded until fracture using a mechanical testing machine. The maximum load at fracture and patterns of fracture were recorded. Additionally, a literature search was performed on studies related to TrussAC and its importance. Statistical Analysis Fracture strengths were compared using one-way analysis of variance complemented by Bonferroni test. Fracture patterns were analyzed using chi-square test. Results TradAC showed significantly lower mean load at fracture than TrussAC, ConsAC, and intact teeth. Fracture resistance of teeth with TrussAC and ConsAC was not significantly different. All three test groups showed significantly more frequent unrestorable fractures. The literature review revealed that TrussAC did not improve the fracture strength significantly; however, pulp chamber debridement was significantly impaired. Conclusion TrussAC improved the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth, but not significantly as compared to ConsAC. Restorable fractures were more in intact teeth compared with all prepared ones.","PeriodicalId":37771,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of General Dentistry","volume":"10 1","pages":"044 - 049"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Fracture Resistance of Teeth with Truss Endodontic Access: An In Vitro Study and Literature Review\",\"authors\":\"M. Karobari, A. Abdul Aziz, Saleem D Makandar, N. A. Abdul Ghani, M. Halim, T. Noorani\",\"doi\":\"10.1055/s-0041-1732780\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Objective This article evaluates the fracture resistance of teeth with different endodontic access cavities and conducts literature review on the effects of truss endodontic cavity. Material and Methods Eighty human mandibular first molars were assigned randomly to four groups (n = 20); group 1: truss access cavity (TrussAC); group 2: conservative access cavity (ConsAC); group 3: traditional access cavity (TradAC); and group 4: served as control (no access). Accesses were prepared in groups 1 to 3, respectively. Endodontic treatment was performed on all accessed teeth and composite restoration placed. Teeth in all groups were loaded until fracture using a mechanical testing machine. The maximum load at fracture and patterns of fracture were recorded. Additionally, a literature search was performed on studies related to TrussAC and its importance. Statistical Analysis Fracture strengths were compared using one-way analysis of variance complemented by Bonferroni test. Fracture patterns were analyzed using chi-square test. Results TradAC showed significantly lower mean load at fracture than TrussAC, ConsAC, and intact teeth. Fracture resistance of teeth with TrussAC and ConsAC was not significantly different. All three test groups showed significantly more frequent unrestorable fractures. The literature review revealed that TrussAC did not improve the fracture strength significantly; however, pulp chamber debridement was significantly impaired. Conclusion TrussAC improved the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth, but not significantly as compared to ConsAC. Restorable fractures were more in intact teeth compared with all prepared ones.\",\"PeriodicalId\":37771,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of General Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"10 1\",\"pages\":\"044 - 049\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of General Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732780\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of General Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0041-1732780","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

【摘要】目的评价不同根管通道腔牙体的抗折断性,并对桁架式根管通道的效果进行文献综述。材料与方法80颗人下颌第一磨牙随机分为4组(n = 20);第1组:桁架通道腔(TrussAC);第二组:保守通道腔(ConsAC);第三组:传统通道腔(TradAC);第4组:对照组(无权限)。第1组至第3组分别制备通道。对所有接触到的牙齿进行根管治疗并放置复合修复体。各组牙均采用力学试验机加载至骨折。记录了断裂处的最大载荷和断裂模式。此外,对TrussAC及其重要性的相关研究进行了文献检索。断裂强度的比较采用单因素方差分析,辅以Bonferroni检验。骨折模式采用卡方检验分析。结果TradAC的平均骨折载荷明显低于TrussAC、ConsAC和完整牙。TrussAC与ConsAC的抗断性无显著差异。所有三个试验组均显示出更频繁的不可恢复性骨折。文献综述显示,TrussAC对断裂强度没有显著提高;然而,髓腔清创明显受损。结论TrussAC可提高根管治疗牙的断裂强度,但与ConsAC相比无明显差异。完整牙的可恢复性骨折发生率高于所有预备牙。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Fracture Resistance of Teeth with Truss Endodontic Access: An In Vitro Study and Literature Review
Abstract Objective This article evaluates the fracture resistance of teeth with different endodontic access cavities and conducts literature review on the effects of truss endodontic cavity. Material and Methods Eighty human mandibular first molars were assigned randomly to four groups (n = 20); group 1: truss access cavity (TrussAC); group 2: conservative access cavity (ConsAC); group 3: traditional access cavity (TradAC); and group 4: served as control (no access). Accesses were prepared in groups 1 to 3, respectively. Endodontic treatment was performed on all accessed teeth and composite restoration placed. Teeth in all groups were loaded until fracture using a mechanical testing machine. The maximum load at fracture and patterns of fracture were recorded. Additionally, a literature search was performed on studies related to TrussAC and its importance. Statistical Analysis Fracture strengths were compared using one-way analysis of variance complemented by Bonferroni test. Fracture patterns were analyzed using chi-square test. Results TradAC showed significantly lower mean load at fracture than TrussAC, ConsAC, and intact teeth. Fracture resistance of teeth with TrussAC and ConsAC was not significantly different. All three test groups showed significantly more frequent unrestorable fractures. The literature review revealed that TrussAC did not improve the fracture strength significantly; however, pulp chamber debridement was significantly impaired. Conclusion TrussAC improved the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth, but not significantly as compared to ConsAC. Restorable fractures were more in intact teeth compared with all prepared ones.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Journal of General Dentistry
European Journal of General Dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: European Journal of General Dentistry (EJGD) is one of the leading open-access international dental journal within the field of Dentistry. The aim of EJGD is publishing novel and high-quality research papers, as well as to influence the practice of dentistry at clinician, research, industry and policy-maker level on an international basis. EJGD publishes articles on all disciplines of dentistry including the cariology, orthodontics, oral surgery, preventive dentistry, periodontology, endodontology, operative dentistry, fixed and removable prosthodontics, dental biomaterials science, long-term clinical trials including epidemiology and oral health, technology transfer of new scientific instrumentation or procedures, as well as clinically relevant oral biology and translational research.Moreover, EJGD also publish the scientific researches evaluating the use of new biomaterials, new drugs and new methods for treatment of patients with different kinds of oral and maxillofacial diseases or defects, the diagnosis of oral and maxillofacial diseases with new methods, etc. Moreover, researches on the quality of life, psychological interventions, improving disease treatment outcomes, the prevention, diagnosis and management of cancer therapeutic complications, rehabilitation, palliative and end of life care, and support teamwork for cancer care and oral health care for old patients are also welcome. EJGD publishes research articles, case reports, reviews and comparison studies evaluating materials and methods in the all fields of related to dentistry.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信