The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength and mode of teeth restored with fi... more The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength and mode of teeth restored with fiber/titanium post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite. The mesial, distal, and palatal walls of human maxillary molar teeth were removed, so that only the buccal wall remained. Group 1, with caries-free maxillary molars, was used as a positive control group and the remaining groups were restored as follows: group 2, with only adhesive composite; group 3, with polyethylene fiber and adhesive composite; group 4, with fiber post and adhesive composite; group 5, with fiber post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite; group 6, with titanium post and adhesive composite; and group 7, with titanium post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite. A universal testing machine was used for fracture tests. Compres-sive loads were applied at an angle of 90 degrees on the occlusal surface of the specimens at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture occurred. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were adopted for statistical analysis. The study shows that, based on the fracture strength, the group of teeth that were restored with glass fiber post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite has the most significant improvement over all the other teeth groups. Based on the fracture mode, the teeth groups restored with only glass fiber post, adhesive composite, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite have relatively more restorable fractures observed.
The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength and mode of teeth restored with fi... more The purpose of this study was to compare the fracture strength and mode of teeth restored with fiber/titanium post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite. The mesial, distal, and palatal walls of human maxillary molar teeth were removed, so that only the buccal wall remained. Group 1, with caries-free maxillary molars, was used as a positive control group and the remaining groups were restored as follows: group 2, with only adhesive composite; group 3, with polyethylene fiber and adhesive composite; group 4, with fiber post and adhesive composite; group 5, with fiber post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite; group 6, with titanium post and adhesive composite; and group 7, with titanium post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite. A universal testing machine was used for fracture tests. Compres-sive loads were applied at an angle of 90 degrees on the occlusal surface of the specimens at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture occurred. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were adopted for statistical analysis. The study shows that, based on the fracture strength, the group of teeth that were restored with glass fiber post, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite has the most significant improvement over all the other teeth groups. Based on the fracture mode, the teeth groups restored with only glass fiber post, adhesive composite, polyethylene fiber, and adhesive composite have relatively more restorable fractures observed.
Uploads
Papers by aa aa