Restoration of endodontically treated teeth with major hard tissue loss – influence of post surface design on pull‐out bond strength of fiber‐reinforced composite posts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: The aim was to evaluate the influence of post surface design and luting system on bond strength of quartz-fiber-reinforced composite posts (QFRCPs) luted to root canal dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Single-rooted bovine teeth (n = 650) were randomly assigned (13 groups, n = 50), sectioned, endodontically treated, filled, and post space (length 8 mm) prepared. Custom-made plain-surfaced fiber posts (PSXRO) and (both RTD) macroretentive Macro-Lock Post Illusion X-RO (MLXRO) were inserted into the post spaces using six luting systems: Ketac Cem (KC), Fuji Plus (FP), RelyX Unicem, Multilink Primer_Multilink, Sealbond Ultima_CoreCem, and LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z. As control, a titanium post was cemented with KC. After water storage (24 h, 37°C), pull-out test was performed, followed by failure mode assessment. Bond strength was calculated in MPa and analyzed using anova, Dunnett-T3-test, and Student's t-test with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Post design and luting system significantly influenced the bond strength [MPa] (P < 0.05). Compared with the control 4.3 (1.5), all test groups exhibited higher bond strengths (P < 0.05), except for group PSXRO/KC 4.2 (1.0). The remaining bond strengths were PSXRO: FP 8.6 (1.5), RelyX Unicem 10.4 (3.4), Multilink Primer_Multilink 12.7 (3.0), SealBond Ultima_CoreCem 12.7 (3.0), LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z 15.7 (2.5), and MLXRO: KC 7.2 (2.2), FP 13.4 (2.5), RelyX Unicem 9.2 (2.9), Multilink Primer_Multilink 12.5 (4.5), SealBond Ultima_CoreCem 13.7 (4.6), LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z 20.6 (2.2). The bond strengths of MLXRO were higher than those of PSXRO when luted with KC, FP, and LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The post surface design and luting system selection influenced the bond strength of conventionally and adhesively luted QFRCPs to bovine root canal dentin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".