PURPOSE: This study prospectively evaluated the clinical performance of three types of translucent posts over a follow-up period of between 2 and 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selected were 225 patients with one premolar in need of endodontic treatment, followed by restoration with a fiber post and porcelain crown. The sample was randomly divided into three groups of 75 patients each. The same type of post was used in all patients within a group: group 1 = Aesthetic Plus; group 2 = DT; and group 3 = FRC Postec. For bonding the post, a light-curing adhesive (One-Step) and a dual-curing resin cement (Duo-Link) were applied in group 1 and 2 roots, whereas self-curing materials (Excite DSC as adhesive and MultiLink as resin cement) were used in group 3. After 6, 12, and 24 months, patients were recalled, and a clinical and radiographic examination was performed. For some patients, 30-month follow-up data were also collected. RESULTS: Debonding of the post occurrred in eight cases (3.5%); in another six cases, a recurrence of the periapical lesion was reported. CONCLUSION: The statistical analysis did not reveal any significant difference in the survival rate of the tested posts, suggesting that all are equally and sufficiently reliable for clinical use
Monticelli, F., Grandini, S., Goracci, C., Ferrari, M. (2003). Clinical behavior of translucent-fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study. THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PROSTHODONTICS, 16(6), 593-596.
Clinical behavior of translucent-fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study
GRANDINI, SIMONE;GORACCI, CECILIA;FERRARI, MARCO
2003-01-01
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study prospectively evaluated the clinical performance of three types of translucent posts over a follow-up period of between 2 and 3 years. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Selected were 225 patients with one premolar in need of endodontic treatment, followed by restoration with a fiber post and porcelain crown. The sample was randomly divided into three groups of 75 patients each. The same type of post was used in all patients within a group: group 1 = Aesthetic Plus; group 2 = DT; and group 3 = FRC Postec. For bonding the post, a light-curing adhesive (One-Step) and a dual-curing resin cement (Duo-Link) were applied in group 1 and 2 roots, whereas self-curing materials (Excite DSC as adhesive and MultiLink as resin cement) were used in group 3. After 6, 12, and 24 months, patients were recalled, and a clinical and radiographic examination was performed. For some patients, 30-month follow-up data were also collected. RESULTS: Debonding of the post occurrred in eight cases (3.5%); in another six cases, a recurrence of the periapical lesion was reported. CONCLUSION: The statistical analysis did not reveal any significant difference in the survival rate of the tested posts, suggesting that all are equally and sufficiently reliable for clinical useFile | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
MonticelliIntJProsthod.pdf
non disponibili
Tipologia:
Post-print
Licenza:
NON PUBBLICO - Accesso privato/ristretto
Dimensione
49.07 kB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
49.07 kB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
https://hdl.handle.net/11365/41265
Attenzione
Attenzione! I dati visualizzati non sono stati sottoposti a validazione da parte dell'ateneo