| ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2006 | Volume
: 9
| Issue : 3 | Page : 99-103 |
|
|
Evaluation of two post and core systems using fracture strength test and finite element analysis
Panna Narang, BV Sreenivasa Murthy, Sylvia Mathew
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M. S. R. D. C
Correspondence Address:
Panna Narang
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, M. S. R. D. C
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.42354
|
|
|
Aim: To compare the failure load and failure modes of these two post and core systems using Fracture Strength Test and to use Finite Element Models for the comparison of pattern of stress distribution between the two post and core systems.
Methodology: In FST, 22 maxillary central incisors were selected and RCT was performed. Post spaces were prepared and specimens were divided into 2 groups: - custom cast post and light transmitting post. Posts were then cemented using GIC for custom cast and Panavia F21 for light transmitting posts followed by composite core build up. All the specimens were then mounted on acrylic resin blocks and loaded under UTM until failure. In FEM, CT scan models were used to generate 3D and 2D models of maxillary central incisor with post core assembly and supporting structures. The material properties were assigned and boundary conditions were applied and a force of 100N was applied at 45° on the palatal surface. Analysis was run and stress distribution pattern was studied.
Results: FST indicated a statistically significant difference in the 2 post core systems with light transmitting post failing at a higher load than custom cast post. Also the mode of failure was classified as being favorable for light transmitting post. FEN results indicated less stress distribution on tooth and with in post core system for light transmitting post compared to custom cast post.
Conclusion: The area of maximum stress level for post core systems and level of fracture both coincided in our study. Light transmitting post had a higher failure load and also provides a fail safe mode of failure and thus resulting in less damage to tooth. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF Not available]* |
|
 |
|
