Loading…

Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel

Purpose This investigation examined what effect cement thickness had on retention of prefabricated endodontic dowels luted with a composite resin cement (Panavia 21 OP; J Morita, Irvine, CA) into canals previously obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Materials and Methods Sixty‐fo...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of prosthodontics 2002-03, Vol.11 (1), p.19-24
Main Authors: Hagge, Mark S., Wong, Ralan D. M., Lindemuth, James S.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
cited_by cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3
cites cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3
container_end_page 24
container_issue 1
container_start_page 19
container_title Journal of prosthodontics
container_volume 11
creator Hagge, Mark S.
Wong, Ralan D. M.
Lindemuth, James S.
description Purpose This investigation examined what effect cement thickness had on retention of prefabricated endodontic dowels luted with a composite resin cement (Panavia 21 OP; J Morita, Irvine, CA) into canals previously obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Materials and Methods Sixty‐four single‐rooted teeth were decoronated, filed, cleaned, and sequentially shaped with sizes 2–5 Gates Glidden drills (Dentsply/Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and 0.12 taper rotary instrumentation. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups of 16 specimens each. All specimens were obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Dowel space preparation and dowel cementation were completed 1 week after obturation. Ten‐millimeter‐deep dowel spaces were prepared using dowel drills with 4 different diameters: size 5 Parapost drill (Group 1; Coltene/Whaledent, Mahwah, NJ); size 5.5 Parapost drill (Group 2; Coltene/Whaledent); size 6 Gates Glidden drill (Group 3; Dentsply/Maillefer); size 6 Parapost drill (Group 4; Coltene/Whaledent). Size 5 Paraposts were then cemented with Panavia 21 OP. After 48 hours of storage, specimens were mounted in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with acrylic, and the dowels were removed in tensile mode using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min, with data recorded in kilograms. Results (all values in kilograms) Group 1 (Parapost 5) mean = 15.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) =±6.11; Group 2 (Parapost 5.5) mean = 25.60, 95% CI =±7.39; Group 3 (Gates‐Glidden 6) mean = 43.15, 95% CI =±7.81; Group 4 (Parapost 6) mean = 37.75, 95% CI =±6.35. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests revealed that Group 3 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 and Group 2 (p < .05), and that Group 4 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 (p < .05). Conclusions Paraposts cemented with Panavia 21 OP showed significantly greater retention in oversized dowel spaces compared with dowel spaces prepared with the manufacturers' matched dowel‐drill set.
doi_str_mv 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00019.x
format article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71573320</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>71573320</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNkElPxCAYhonRuIz-BcPJWyuUbiRejI7LxKgxLnMjlH7Ejt0EJs78e6md6FUuEHjely8PQpiSkPp1ughpwqIgj_k8jAiJQkII5eFqC-3_Pmz7M0l4wGM630MH1i48Q5Oc7qI9SjlLEpLuIz3VGpTDncZl9wU1tr1UgHsDvTTSVV2LZVti1TV9ZysHWEEDrcPuvVIfLViLPWHA-buB9TVyCGtZmEpJB-VYe4h2tKwtHG32CXq5mj5f3AR3D9e3F-d3gWLUz5qlMScKdF7EUPA404zrJJM8LaKY6lSnEaMyUyouUwUUQBc5UzyiUqpIM6bYBJ2Mvb3pPpdgnWgqq6CuZQvd0oqMJhljEfFgPoLKdNb6gUVvqkaataBEDI7FQgwqxaBSDI7Fj2Ox8tHjzR_LooHyL7iR6oGzEfiqalj_u1jMHh6ffMcEBWO8sg5Wv3FpPkSasSwRb_fXgr-yp0syn4k5-wZPyJwf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>71573320</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel</title><source>Wiley</source><creator>Hagge, Mark S. ; Wong, Ralan D. M. ; Lindemuth, James S.</creator><creatorcontrib>Hagge, Mark S. ; Wong, Ralan D. M. ; Lindemuth, James S.</creatorcontrib><description>Purpose This investigation examined what effect cement thickness had on retention of prefabricated endodontic dowels luted with a composite resin cement (Panavia 21 OP; J Morita, Irvine, CA) into canals previously obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Materials and Methods Sixty‐four single‐rooted teeth were decoronated, filed, cleaned, and sequentially shaped with sizes 2–5 Gates Glidden drills (Dentsply/Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and 0.12 taper rotary instrumentation. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups of 16 specimens each. All specimens were obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Dowel space preparation and dowel cementation were completed 1 week after obturation. Ten‐millimeter‐deep dowel spaces were prepared using dowel drills with 4 different diameters: size 5 Parapost drill (Group 1; Coltene/Whaledent, Mahwah, NJ); size 5.5 Parapost drill (Group 2; Coltene/Whaledent); size 6 Gates Glidden drill (Group 3; Dentsply/Maillefer); size 6 Parapost drill (Group 4; Coltene/Whaledent). Size 5 Paraposts were then cemented with Panavia 21 OP. After 48 hours of storage, specimens were mounted in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with acrylic, and the dowels were removed in tensile mode using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min, with data recorded in kilograms. Results (all values in kilograms) Group 1 (Parapost 5) mean = 15.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) =±6.11; Group 2 (Parapost 5.5) mean = 25.60, 95% CI =±7.39; Group 3 (Gates‐Glidden 6) mean = 43.15, 95% CI =±7.81; Group 4 (Parapost 6) mean = 37.75, 95% CI =±6.35. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests revealed that Group 3 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 and Group 2 (p &lt; .05), and that Group 4 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 (p &lt; .05). Conclusions Paraposts cemented with Panavia 21 OP showed significantly greater retention in oversized dowel spaces compared with dowel spaces prepared with the manufacturers' matched dowel‐drill set.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1059-941X</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1532-849X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00019.x</identifier><identifier>PMID: 11935506</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd</publisher><subject>Analysis of Variance ; cement ; Cementation ; composite ; Composite Resins - chemistry ; Confidence Intervals ; Dental Bonding ; Dental Prosthesis Retention ; Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry ; Dentistry ; dowel ; Eugenol - therapeutic use ; Gutta-Percha - therapeutic use ; Humans ; Humidity ; Materials Testing ; Phosphates - chemistry ; polymerization ; Post and Core Technique - instrumentation ; Resin Cements - chemistry ; retention ; Root Canal Filling Materials - therapeutic use ; Root Canal Obturation ; Root Canal Preparation ; Statistics as Topic ; Surface Properties ; Temperature ; Tensile Strength ; Time Factors ; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - instrumentation ; Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of prosthodontics, 2002-03, Vol.11 (1), p.19-24</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11935506$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Hagge, Mark S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Ralan D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindemuth, James S.</creatorcontrib><title>Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel</title><title>Journal of prosthodontics</title><addtitle>J Prosthodont</addtitle><description>Purpose This investigation examined what effect cement thickness had on retention of prefabricated endodontic dowels luted with a composite resin cement (Panavia 21 OP; J Morita, Irvine, CA) into canals previously obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Materials and Methods Sixty‐four single‐rooted teeth were decoronated, filed, cleaned, and sequentially shaped with sizes 2–5 Gates Glidden drills (Dentsply/Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and 0.12 taper rotary instrumentation. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups of 16 specimens each. All specimens were obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Dowel space preparation and dowel cementation were completed 1 week after obturation. Ten‐millimeter‐deep dowel spaces were prepared using dowel drills with 4 different diameters: size 5 Parapost drill (Group 1; Coltene/Whaledent, Mahwah, NJ); size 5.5 Parapost drill (Group 2; Coltene/Whaledent); size 6 Gates Glidden drill (Group 3; Dentsply/Maillefer); size 6 Parapost drill (Group 4; Coltene/Whaledent). Size 5 Paraposts were then cemented with Panavia 21 OP. After 48 hours of storage, specimens were mounted in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with acrylic, and the dowels were removed in tensile mode using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min, with data recorded in kilograms. Results (all values in kilograms) Group 1 (Parapost 5) mean = 15.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) =±6.11; Group 2 (Parapost 5.5) mean = 25.60, 95% CI =±7.39; Group 3 (Gates‐Glidden 6) mean = 43.15, 95% CI =±7.81; Group 4 (Parapost 6) mean = 37.75, 95% CI =±6.35. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests revealed that Group 3 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 and Group 2 (p &lt; .05), and that Group 4 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 (p &lt; .05). Conclusions Paraposts cemented with Panavia 21 OP showed significantly greater retention in oversized dowel spaces compared with dowel spaces prepared with the manufacturers' matched dowel‐drill set.</description><subject>Analysis of Variance</subject><subject>cement</subject><subject>Cementation</subject><subject>composite</subject><subject>Composite Resins - chemistry</subject><subject>Confidence Intervals</subject><subject>Dental Bonding</subject><subject>Dental Prosthesis Retention</subject><subject>Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry</subject><subject>Dentistry</subject><subject>dowel</subject><subject>Eugenol - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Gutta-Percha - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Humidity</subject><subject>Materials Testing</subject><subject>Phosphates - chemistry</subject><subject>polymerization</subject><subject>Post and Core Technique - instrumentation</subject><subject>Resin Cements - chemistry</subject><subject>retention</subject><subject>Root Canal Filling Materials - therapeutic use</subject><subject>Root Canal Obturation</subject><subject>Root Canal Preparation</subject><subject>Statistics as Topic</subject><subject>Surface Properties</subject><subject>Temperature</subject><subject>Tensile Strength</subject><subject>Time Factors</subject><subject>Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - instrumentation</subject><subject>Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - methods</subject><issn>1059-941X</issn><issn>1532-849X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2002</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNqNkElPxCAYhonRuIz-BcPJWyuUbiRejI7LxKgxLnMjlH7Ejt0EJs78e6md6FUuEHjely8PQpiSkPp1ughpwqIgj_k8jAiJQkII5eFqC-3_Pmz7M0l4wGM630MH1i48Q5Oc7qI9SjlLEpLuIz3VGpTDncZl9wU1tr1UgHsDvTTSVV2LZVti1TV9ZysHWEEDrcPuvVIfLViLPWHA-buB9TVyCGtZmEpJB-VYe4h2tKwtHG32CXq5mj5f3AR3D9e3F-d3gWLUz5qlMScKdF7EUPA404zrJJM8LaKY6lSnEaMyUyouUwUUQBc5UzyiUqpIM6bYBJ2Mvb3pPpdgnWgqq6CuZQvd0oqMJhljEfFgPoLKdNb6gUVvqkaataBEDI7FQgwqxaBSDI7Fj2Ox8tHjzR_LooHyL7iR6oGzEfiqalj_u1jMHh6ffMcEBWO8sg5Wv3FpPkSasSwRb_fXgr-yp0syn4k5-wZPyJwf</recordid><startdate>200203</startdate><enddate>200203</enddate><creator>Hagge, Mark S.</creator><creator>Wong, Ralan D. M.</creator><creator>Lindemuth, James S.</creator><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>200203</creationdate><title>Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel</title><author>Hagge, Mark S. ; Wong, Ralan D. M. ; Lindemuth, James S.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2002</creationdate><topic>Analysis of Variance</topic><topic>cement</topic><topic>Cementation</topic><topic>composite</topic><topic>Composite Resins - chemistry</topic><topic>Confidence Intervals</topic><topic>Dental Bonding</topic><topic>Dental Prosthesis Retention</topic><topic>Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry</topic><topic>Dentistry</topic><topic>dowel</topic><topic>Eugenol - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Gutta-Percha - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Humidity</topic><topic>Materials Testing</topic><topic>Phosphates - chemistry</topic><topic>polymerization</topic><topic>Post and Core Technique - instrumentation</topic><topic>Resin Cements - chemistry</topic><topic>retention</topic><topic>Root Canal Filling Materials - therapeutic use</topic><topic>Root Canal Obturation</topic><topic>Root Canal Preparation</topic><topic>Statistics as Topic</topic><topic>Surface Properties</topic><topic>Temperature</topic><topic>Tensile Strength</topic><topic>Time Factors</topic><topic>Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - instrumentation</topic><topic>Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Hagge, Mark S.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Wong, Ralan D. M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lindemuth, James S.</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Journal of prosthodontics</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Hagge, Mark S.</au><au>Wong, Ralan D. M.</au><au>Lindemuth, James S.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel</atitle><jtitle>Journal of prosthodontics</jtitle><addtitle>J Prosthodont</addtitle><date>2002-03</date><risdate>2002</risdate><volume>11</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>19</spage><epage>24</epage><pages>19-24</pages><issn>1059-941X</issn><eissn>1532-849X</eissn><abstract>Purpose This investigation examined what effect cement thickness had on retention of prefabricated endodontic dowels luted with a composite resin cement (Panavia 21 OP; J Morita, Irvine, CA) into canals previously obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Materials and Methods Sixty‐four single‐rooted teeth were decoronated, filed, cleaned, and sequentially shaped with sizes 2–5 Gates Glidden drills (Dentsply/Maillefer, Tulsa, OK) and 0.12 taper rotary instrumentation. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups of 16 specimens each. All specimens were obturated with gutta percha and a eugenol‐based sealer. Dowel space preparation and dowel cementation were completed 1 week after obturation. Ten‐millimeter‐deep dowel spaces were prepared using dowel drills with 4 different diameters: size 5 Parapost drill (Group 1; Coltene/Whaledent, Mahwah, NJ); size 5.5 Parapost drill (Group 2; Coltene/Whaledent); size 6 Gates Glidden drill (Group 3; Dentsply/Maillefer); size 6 Parapost drill (Group 4; Coltene/Whaledent). Size 5 Paraposts were then cemented with Panavia 21 OP. After 48 hours of storage, specimens were mounted in polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe with acrylic, and the dowels were removed in tensile mode using a universal testing machine at 1 mm/min, with data recorded in kilograms. Results (all values in kilograms) Group 1 (Parapost 5) mean = 15.07, 95% confidence interval (CI) =±6.11; Group 2 (Parapost 5.5) mean = 25.60, 95% CI =±7.39; Group 3 (Gates‐Glidden 6) mean = 43.15, 95% CI =±7.81; Group 4 (Parapost 6) mean = 37.75, 95% CI =±6.35. Analysis of variance and Bonferroni tests revealed that Group 3 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 and Group 2 (p &lt; .05), and that Group 4 had significantly greater mean retention strength values than Group 1 (p &lt; .05). Conclusions Paraposts cemented with Panavia 21 OP showed significantly greater retention in oversized dowel spaces compared with dowel spaces prepared with the manufacturers' matched dowel‐drill set.</abstract><cop>Oxford, UK</cop><pub>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</pub><pmid>11935506</pmid><doi>10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00019.x</doi><tpages>6</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1059-941X
ispartof Journal of prosthodontics, 2002-03, Vol.11 (1), p.19-24
issn 1059-941X
1532-849X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_71573320
source Wiley
subjects Analysis of Variance
cement
Cementation
composite
Composite Resins - chemistry
Confidence Intervals
Dental Bonding
Dental Prosthesis Retention
Dentin-Bonding Agents - chemistry
Dentistry
dowel
Eugenol - therapeutic use
Gutta-Percha - therapeutic use
Humans
Humidity
Materials Testing
Phosphates - chemistry
polymerization
Post and Core Technique - instrumentation
Resin Cements - chemistry
retention
Root Canal Filling Materials - therapeutic use
Root Canal Obturation
Root Canal Preparation
Statistics as Topic
Surface Properties
Temperature
Tensile Strength
Time Factors
Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - instrumentation
Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic - methods
title Effect of dowel space preparation and composite cement thickness on retention of a prefabricated dowel
url http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-07T17%3A06%3A11IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Effect%20of%20dowel%20space%20preparation%20and%20composite%20cement%20thickness%20on%20retention%20of%20a%20prefabricated%20dowel&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20prosthodontics&rft.au=Hagge,%20Mark%20S.&rft.date=2002-03&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=19&rft.epage=24&rft.pages=19-24&rft.issn=1059-941X&rft.eissn=1532-849X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/j.1532-849X.2002.00019.x&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E71573320%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3159-76490cef8b4eb947f39f57a96b241f6f6231a7cc4d6ce1eefb83c921aac2f33c3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=71573320&rft_id=info:pmid/11935506&rfr_iscdi=true