Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 90, Issue 6 , Pages 547-555, December 2003

In vitro assessment of retention of four esthetic dowels to resin core foundation and teeth

Presented at the 2002 Academy of Fixed Prosthodontics meeting.

  • Fahad Al-harbi, BDS, MSD

      Affiliations

    • Doctor of Science Candidate, Boston, Mass, USA
    • Corresponding Author InformationReprint requests to: Dr Fahad Al-harbi, Department of Restorative Sciences/Biomaterials, 801 Albany St, Suite 200 Boston, MA 02118-2392, USA, Fax: 617-638-5591
  • ,
  • Dan Nathanson, DMD, MSD

      Affiliations

    • Professor and Chairman, Department of Restorative Sciences and Biomaterials, Boston, Mass, USA

Abstract 

Statement of problem

Several new esthetic dowel systems are currently available for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. These dowel systems enhance the esthetic quality of all-ceramic restorations better than metallic dowel systems.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retentive strength of composite and ceramic endodontic dowel systems to the tooth and to the core foundation.

Material and methods

The following dowel systems were tested: resin dowels (Fibrekor [FR]; Luscent [LU]; Twin Luscent Anchor [TLU]); ceramic dowels (Cerapost [CR]; Cosmopost [CO]); and a titanium dowel (ParaPost XH [Ti]). In Part I of the study, core retention was tested by forming Bis-Core resin (n=12) cores around dowels followed by separation using a universal testing machine. In Part II, 60 (n=12) extracted human canines were endodontically treated, and dowel spaces were prepared using the corresponding drill for each dowel system. Nine-millimeter resin and ceramic dowels were cemented with C & B resin luting agent. Additionally, 2 groups (n=12) of Ti dowels cemented with C & B resin luting agent and zinc phosphate luting agent served as control groups. Retention was tested using a universal testing machine to separate the dowels from teeth. One-way analysis of variance and Student Newman-Keuls tests were conducted for statistical analysis (α=.05). Surface texture of all dowel systems tested was examined using SEM at original magnification ×25 and ×250.

Results

Core retention of Ti was higher than all esthetic dowels tested (α<.05), but FR had higher core retention than the other esthetic dowels tested. Resin dowels had better retention to teeth than ceramic dowels (α<.05).

Conclusion

The esthetic dowel systems were less retentive for the resin core material than the titanium control. Resin dowel systems were more retentive in the root than the ceramic dowels but were similar to the titanium control.

To access this article, please choose from the options below

Login to an existing account or Register a new account.

  • Purchase this article for 15.00 USD (You must login/register to purchase this article)

    Online access for 24 hours. The PDF version can be downloaded as your permanent record.

  • Subscribe to this title

    Get unlimited online access to this article and all other articles in this title 24/7 for one year.

  • Claim access now

    For current subscribers with Society Membership or Account Number.

  • Visit SciVerse ScienceDirect to see if you have access via your institution.
 

PII: S0022-3913(03)00674-7

doi:10.1016/j.prosdent.2003.09.014

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 90, Issue 6 , Pages 547-555, December 2003