2010PubMedRequires access

Resistance of composite and amalgam core foundations retained with and without pins and bonding agents.

Terence A. Imbery, Ryan Swigert, Brian Richman, Vincent Sawicki, Lauren Pace, Peter C. Moon

Open publisher page 1 citations

Abstract

To compare the resistance of different amalgam and composite core foundations retained by pins, bonding agents, or both, 100 molars were mounted in acrylic resin and their occlusal surfaces were reduced to expose dentin. Pins were inserted at the four line angles of the teeth and matrices were placed. Bonding agents were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Amalgam was handcondensed and composite was incrementally added and photocured. Restorations were adjusted to produce specimens (n = 10) 5 mm in height with a 1 mm bevel at the axial-occlusal surface. After immersion in deionized water for 24 hours, specimens were loaded at a 45 degree angle on their beveled surfaces in a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.02 in./minute. ANOVA and Tukey's tests indicated that FluoroCore 2 (with or without pins) was statistically stronger than all other combinations (p < 0.05).

About this research paper

What this paper is about

To compare the resistance of different amalgam and composite core foundations retained by pins, bonding agents, or both, 100 molars were mounted in acrylic resin and their occlusal surfaces were reduced to expose dentin. Pins were inserted at the four line angles of the teeth and matrices were placed. Bonding agents were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Amalgam was handcondensed and composite was incrementally added and photocured. Restorations were adjusted to produce specimens (n = 10) 5 mm in height with a 1 mm bevel at the axial-occlusal surface. After immersion in deionized water for 24 hours, specimens were loaded at a 45 degree angle on their beveled surfaces in a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.02 in./minute. ANOVA and Tukey's tests indicated that FluoroCore 2 (with or without pins) was statistically stronger than all other combinations (p < 0.05).

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 1 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

To compare the resistance of different amalgam and composite core foundations retained by pins, bonding agents, or both, 100 molars were mounted in acrylic resin and their occlusal surfaces were reduced to expose dentin. Pins were inserted at the four line angles of the teeth and matrices were placed. Bonding agents were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions. Amalgam was handcondensed and composite was incrementally added and photocured. Restorations were adjusted to produce specimens (n = 10) 5 mm in height with a 1 mm bevel at the axial-occlusal surface. After immersion in deionized water for 24 hours, specimens were loaded at a 45 degree angle on their beveled surfaces in a Universal Testing Machine at a crosshead speed of 0.02 in./minute. ANOVA and Tukey's tests indicated that FluoroCore 2 (with or without pins) was statistically stronger than all other combinations (p < 0.05).

Key concepts: Crosshead, Bevel, Amalgam (chemistry), Materials science, Universal testing machine, Molar, Composite number, Composite material

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Resistance of composite and amalgam core foundations retained with and without pins and bonding agents. — Research Paper | ScholarLens