Adjustment of cast metal post/cores modeled with different acrylic resins
Aim: Evaluate the performance of four commercially available chemically-activated acrylic resins (CAARs) by measuring the level of displacement of the cores following casting. Materials and Methods: Two devices were constructed to model the cores based on a natural tooth. Forty post/cores were modeled, 10 in each of the following CAARs: Duralay (Reliance Dental, Illinois, USA), Pattern Resin (GC, Tokyo, Japan), Dencrilay (Dencril, Sao Paulo, Brazil), and Jet (Clássico, Sao Paulo, Brazil). Two casting rings were included,
each of which contained 5 post/cores for each of the four CAARs tested, a total of 20 per ring. Following casting, the specimens were only sandblasted and separated from the feeding channels. The post/cores were
placed in device 1 and, with the aid of an optical microscope, were attached to a digital camera. Images were then taken of the adjustment between the core and the remaining tooth on the labial surface. The images were
processed using the Image Tool for Windows, version 3.0, measuring three fixed points in each specimen. Data were statistically analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey test. Results: The 40 post/cores were divided
into eight groups according to resin brand and casting, obtaining the following results for mean and standard deviation (in mm): Dencrilay 0.192 CI (± 0.08), CII 0.058 (± 0.03); Duralay CI 0.097 (± 0.03), CII 0.131 (±
0.06); Pattern CI 0.07 (± 0.03), CII 0.10 (± 0.05); and Jet CI 0.06 (± 0.02), CII 0.382 (± 0.17). Statistically significant differences could be identified when comparing the Dencrilay CI and the Jet CII with the remaining groups, which all proved to be unfavorable. Conclusion: The quality of cast metal post/core adjustment is not associated with the use of a specific acrylic resin.
Uniterms: Post and core techinique. Acrylic resins.
2. Walton TR. An up to 15-year longitudinal study of 515 metal-ceramic FPDs: part 2. Modes of failure and influence of various clinical characteristics. Int J Prosthodont. 2003;16:177–82.
3. Rennó DG, Contin I. Avaliação da adaptação de retentores intrarradiculares fundidos obtidos por modelagem direta com RAAQ- estudo in vitro. RPG Rev Pos Grad. 2006; 13:25-30.
4. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epóxi resin posts and cast post and core. Am J Dent. 2000; 13:15-8.
5. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent. 2000; 13:9-13.
6. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post Placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod. 2004; 30:289-301.
7. Hansen PA, LeBlanc M, Cook NB, Williams K. The quality of posts and cores made using a reduce-time casting technique. Oper Dent. 2009; 34:709-15.
8. Asmussen E, Peutzfeld A, Heitmann T. Stifiness elastic limit, and strenght of types of endodontic posts. J Dent. 1999; 27:275-8.
9. Giovani AR, Vansan LP, Sousa Neto MD, Paulino SM. In vitro fracture resistance of glassfiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. J Prosthet Dent. 2009;101:183-8.
10. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 87: 431-7.
11. Muniz L, Mathias P, Teixeira ML, Muhana M, Costa L, Ticianeli MG, et al. Reabilitação estética em dentes tratados endodonticamente. Pinos de fibra e possibilidades clínicas conservadoras. São
Paulo: Santos; 2010.
12. Santos AF, Meira JB, Tanaka CB, Xavier TA, Ballester RY, Lima RG, et al. Can fiber posts increase root stresses and reduce fracture. J Dent Res. 2010; 89: 587-91.
13. Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Dietrich T. Survival of glass fibre reinforced composite post restorations after 2 years - an observational
clinical study. J Dent. 2005; 33:305-12.
14. Malferrari S, Monaco C, Scotti R. Clinical evaluation of teeth restored with quartz fiber11 10.7308/aodontol/2013.49.1.01
Arq Odontol, Belo Horizonte, 49(1): 06-11, jan/mar 2013
Adjustment of cast metal post/cores reinforced epoxi resin posts. Int J Prosthod. 2003; 16:39-44.
15. Gadbut J, Wenschhot DE, Properties of níquel alloys, Int J Prosthodont In: Metals handbook, vol3- Properties and Selection. Stainless steel, tool Materials and special Purpose Metals, ASM
Metal Park. 1980; 3: 128-70.
16. Sabbak SA. Indirect fabrication of multiple postand- cores patterns with a vinil polissiloxane matrix. J Prosthet Dent. 2002; 88: 555-7.
17. Mendoza, DB, Eakle S, Kahl EA, Ho R. Root reinforcement with a resin bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent. 1997; 78: 10-4.
18. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prostet Dent. 1997; 78: 5-9.
19. Martinez Inssua A, Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture resistances of pulpless teeth restore with a cast post and core or carbon fiber post with composite core. J Prosthet Dent.
1998; 80: 527-32.
20. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2003; 89: 360-7.
21. Saito T, Campos TN, Fernandes IM, Tortamano P. Moldagem de preparação dental com anel de cobre e godiva. Bras Odontol. 2002; 45: 555-7.
22. Rosentiel SF, Land MF, Fujimoto J. Contemporary fixed prosthodontics. St Louis: Mosby; 1995.
23. Kleine A, Nobilo MAA, Henriques GEP, Mesquita MF. Influência de materiais de moldagem e de técnicas de transferência em implantes
osseointegrados na precisão dimensional linear de modelos de gesso. RPG Ver Pos Grad. 2002; 9: 349-57.