Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 88, Issue 4 , Pages 367-374, October 2002

Resistance of core materials against torsional forces on differently conditioned titanium posts☆☆★★

Presented at 27th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Dental Research, Minneapolis, Minn., March 1998.

University of Hamburg, Dental School, Hamburg, Germany; and University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands

Abstract 

Statement of Problem. The separation of core materials from titanium posts, which have a low modulus of elasticity, has been identified as a problem in restorative dentistry. Purpose. This study evaluated the resistance to torsional forces of various core materials adapted to differently conditioned titanium posts. Material and Methods. Seven hundrd and twenty specimens were tested consisting of: 6 core materials and 5 surface conditioning techniques for 2 kinds of opaquers with 10 specimens in each group (6 × 5 × 2 × 10=600) plus 6 core materials and 2 opaquers were tested and considered as control groups on nonconditioned titanium posts, each group containing 10 specimens (6 × 2 × 10=120). The custom-made pure titanium posts were conditioned with the following products: Silicoater Classical, Silicoater MD, Rocatec, Kevloc, and Siloc surface-conditioning systems. Subsequently, 6 core materials with different compositions (Durafill, Adaptic, Coradent, Ti-Core, Hytac Aplitip, and Photac-Fil Aplitip) were applied to titanium posts that were previously coated with 2 types of light-polymerized opaquers, either Artglass or Dentacolor. Sixty air-abraded titanium posts (250 μm, 30 seconds) were used as controls for each core material. Following thermocycling (5°-55°C, 30 seconds, 5000 cycles), maximum torsional forces were determined with an electronic torque movement key. Data were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance followed by 2-way analysis of variance (P<.05). Results. Significantly higher mean torsional forces were observed with respect to Siloc (20.4 Newton decimeter [dNm]), Silicoater Classical (18.6 dNm), Silicoater MD (18.2 dNm), and Rocatec (17.0 dNm) systems compared with the mean for the untreated control group (14.6 dNm) (P<.001). The Kevloc system (10.4 dNm) demonstrated no significant difference compared with the control group (P>.001). The Kevloc system in combination with the Artglass opaquer and Photac-Fil Aplitip (0.00 dNm) core material showed no resistance against torsional forces. Significant differences were observed between hybrid core materials and microfilled composite, compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer core materials (P<.001). Conclusion. Within the limitations of this study, the resistance to torsional forces for the core materials on titanium posts increased with the use of chemical surface-conditioning techniques and varied in accordance with the opaquer type. Type of core material also significantly influenced the resistance after thermocycling. (J Prosthet Dent 2002;88:367-74.)

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.
 

 Reprint requests to: Dr Mutlu Özcan, Universitair Docent, University of Groningen, Faculty of Medical Sciences, Department of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, Oral Health Institute, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, THE NETHERLANDS, Fax: +31-50-363-2696, E-mail: mutluozcan@hotmail.com

☆☆ aResearch Assistant, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Hamburg.

 bAssistant Professor, Department of Dentistry and Oral Hygiene, University of Groningen.

★★ cInstructor, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Hamburg.

PII: S0022-3913(02)00227-5

doi:10.1067/mpr.2002.128175

Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
Volume 88, Issue 4 , Pages 367-374, October 2002