| CONTENIDO GENERAL DEL CURSO | CONTENIDO DE LA UNIDAD | BIBLIOGRAFÍA DE ESTA SECCIÓN | ARTÍCULOS CONSULTADOS | PALABRAS CLAVE | SECCIONES: 1ª 2ª 3ª 4ª |
2ª Sección de 4 que forman toda la Unidad de Reconstrucción
CONTENIDO
DE LA UNIDAD 18:
17.1. Generalidades y objetivos 17.1.1. Elección y momento oportuno para restaurar el diente 17.1.2. Cambios estructurales del diente despulpado 17.2. Principios generales en restauración de dientes anteriores y posteriores 17.2.1. Elementos fundamentales para la restauración
17.3. Postes intrarradiculares 17.3.1. Desobturación del conducto 17.3.2. Características (longitud, diámetro, diseño, forma) 17.3.4. Postes intrarradiculares vaciados 17.3.4.2. Ventajas y desventajas
17.3.5. Postes intrarradiculares prefabricados 17.3.5.1. Tipos y características 17.3.5.2. Ventajas y desventajas 17.3.5.3. Criterios biomecánicos de selección 17.3.5.3.1. Para el poste 17.3.5.3.2. Para el cemento del poste 17.3.5.3.2. Para el material del muñón
17.4. Pines intradentinarios 17.5. Muñones 17.6. Restauración externa final para anteriores y posteriores 17.6.1. Indicaciones y contraindicaciones 17.6.2. Dientes con destrucción mínima, moderada, avanzada
|
|
RESUMEN DEL ARTÍCULO CITADO
Edson ALFREDO, Emanuel Soares de SOUZA; Melissa Andréia MARCHESAN; Silvana Maria PAULINO; Ricardo GARIBA-SILVA; Manoel Damião SOUSA-NETO; EFFECT OF EUGENOL-BASED ENDODONTIC CEMENT ON THE ADHESION OF INTRARADICULAR POSTS; Braz Dent J (2006) 17(2): 130-133; disponible en: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402006000200009
The present study evaluated, in vitro, the influence of an eugenol-based endodontic sealer (EndoFill) on the adhesion of intra-radicular posts cemented with a resin-based cement (Enforce) ou a zinc phosphate cement. Twenty-four single-rooted maxillary canines were divided into 2 groups (n=12) and obturated with either gutta-percha points plus EndoFill or gutta-percha points alone (no cement). I each group, half of intracanal posts (n=6) were cemented with Enforce resin-based cement and half with zinc phosphate cement.
Specimens were submitted to pull-out test in an Instron machine and tensile force was applied at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until post dislodgement. The maximum forces required for post removal was recorded (N) and means were submitted to statistical analysis by Kruskal-Wallis test (p<0.01). Posts cemented with zinc phosphate cement were significantly more retentive (353.4 N) than those cemented with Enforce (134.9 N) (p<0.01). Regarding the influence of the eugenol-based cement (EndoFill) on post retention, there was statistically significant difference (p<0.01) only between the groups cemented with Enforce, i.e., in the canals filled with
EndoFill + guta-percha there was lower bond strength than in the canals filled with gutta-percha points alone (101.5 and 168.2 N, respectively). In conclusion, the zinc-phosphate-based cement showed greater post retention than the resin-based cement. The findings of this study suggest that the eugenol-containing sealer interfered with the adhesive properties of the resin-based cement.
Investigado por Luis Enrique Díaz López, Alumno del grupo 1522 (2008), FES Iztacala, UNAM
| CONTENIDO GENERAL DEL CURSO | CONTENIDO DE LA UNIDAD | BIBLIOGRAFÍA DE ESTA SECCIÓN | ARTÍCULOS CONSULTADOS | PALABRAS CLAVE | SECCIONES: 1ª 2ª 3ª 4ª |