Removal time of fiber posts versus titanium posts

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 21, Issue 3, 2008, Pages 175-178

  Frazer, Robert Q ^a,b   Kovarik, Robert E ^b   Chance, Kenneth B ^b   Mitchell, Richard J ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY COLLEGE OF DENTISTRY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BIOMEDICAL AND DENTAL MATERIALS; GLASS; GLASS FIBER; GLASS IONOMER; KETAC CEM; KETAC-CEM; MAGNESIUM OXIDE; POLYCARBOXYLATE CEMENT; RESIN CEMENT; TITANIUM; ZINC OXIDE;

ARTICLE; CEMENTATION; CHEMISTRY; CLINICAL TRIAL; COMPARATIVE STUDY; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; DENTAL DEBONDING; ENDODONTICS; HUMAN; INSTRUMENTATION; MATERIALS TESTING; METHODOLOGY; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; TIME; TOOTH CROWN; TOOTH PULP DISEASE;

CEMENTATION; DENTAL DEBONDING; DENTAL MATERIALS; GLASS; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; HUMANS; MAGNESIUM OXIDE; MATERIALS TESTING; POLYCARBOXYLATE CEMENT; POST AND CORE TECHNIQUE; RESIN CEMENTS; ROOT CANAL PREPARATION; TIME FACTORS; TITANIUM; TOOTH, NONVITAL; ZINC OXIDE;

EID: 53849118825     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Abbott PV. Analysis of a referral-based endodontic practice: Part 2. Treatment provided. J Endod 1994;20:253-257.
2. Fernandes AS, Shetty S, Coutinho I. Factors determining post selection: A literature review. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:556-562.
3. Altshul JH, Marshall G, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of dentinal crack incidence and of post removal time resulting from post removal by ultrasonic or mechanical force. J Endod 1997;23:683-686.
4. Castrisos T, Abbott PV. A survey of methods used for post removal in specialist endodontic practice, Int Endod J 2002;35:172-180.
5. Abbott PV. Incidence of root fractures and methods used for post removal. Int Endod J 2002;35:63-67.
6. Ruddle CJ. Nonsurgical retreatment. J Endod 2004;30:827-845.
7. Stamos DE, Gutmann JL. Survey of endodontic retreatment methods used to remove intraradicular posts. J Endod 1993;19:366-369.
8. Johnson WT, Leary JM, Boyer DB. Effect of ultrasonic vibration on post removal in extracted human premolar teeth. J Endod 1996;22:487-488.
9. Dixon EB, Kaczkowski PJ, Nicholls JI, Harrington GW. Comparison of two ultrasonic instruments for post removal. J Endod 2002;28:111-115.
10. Buoncristiani J, Seto BG, Caputo AA. Evaluation of ultrasonic and sonic instruments for intraradicular post removal. J Endod 1994;20:486-489.
11. Hauman CH, Chandler NP, Purton DG. Factors influencing the removal of posts. Int Endod J 2003;36:687-690.
12. Chandler NP, Qualtrough AJ, Purton DG. Comparison of two methods for the removal of root canal posts. Quintessence Int 2003;34:534-536.
13. Gomes AP, Kubo CH, Santos RA, Santos DR, Padilha RQ. The influence of ultrasound on the retention of cast posts cemented with different agents. Int Endod J 2001;34:93-99.
14. th ed. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby, 1998;799-801.
15. Duret B, Reynaud M, Duret F. A new concept of corono-radicular reconstruction, the Composipost (2). Chir Dent Fr 1990;60:69-77. (In French).
16. Dean JP, Jeansonne BG, Sarkar N. In vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber post. J Endod 1998;24:807-810.
17. Isidor F, Odman P, Brondum K. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Prosthodonl 1996;9:131-136.
18. Ferrari M, Vichi A, García Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:15B-18B.
19. Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:151-157.
20. Sakkal S. Carbon-fiber post removal technique. Compend Contin Educ Dent Suppl 1996;20:S86.
21. Cormier CJ, Burns DR, Moon P. In vitro comparison of the fracture resistance and failure mode of fiber, ceramic, and conventional post systems at various stages of restoration. J Prosthodont 2001;10:26-36.
22. Gesi A, Magnolfi S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Comparison of two techniques for removing fiber posts. J Endod 2003;29:580-582.
23. Lindemann M, Yaman P, Dennison JB, Herrcro AA. Comparison of the efficiency and effectiveness of various techniques for removal of fiber posts. J Endod 2005;31:520-522.
24. th Ed. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science; 2000.
25. SAS Institute. Proc GLM. SAS 9.1. Cary, NC, USA: SAS Institute Inc.; 2001
26. Systat_Software. Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance on Ranks. SigmaStat 3.1 far Windows. Point Richmond, CA, USA: Systat Software, Inc.; 2004.
27. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:611-619.
28. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: A literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301.
29. Herbert A, Filho MT, Ueno AH, Bramante CM, Ishikiriama A. The influence of ultrasound in removing intraradicular posts, Int Endod J 1995;28:54-56.
30. Morgano SM. Restoration of pulpless teeth: Application of traditional principles in present and future contexts. J Prosthet Dent 1996;75:375-380.
31. Mitsui FH, Marchi GM, Pimenta LA, Ferraresi PM. In vitro study of fracture resistance of bovine roots using different intraradicular post systems. Quintessence Int 2004;35:612-616.