30 April 2024: Lab/In Vitro Research
Evaluation of Retentive Strength of 50 Endodontically-Treated Single-Rooted Mandibular Second Premolars Restored with Cast Post Cores Using 5 Common Luting (Cement) Agents
Monika Singh 1ABCEF** , Soundarya Singh 2ACDEF , Lakshya Kumar 3ABDEF , Khurshid A. Mattoo 4ACDEF* , Imran Khalid 5CDEG , Mohammad Zahir Kota 5CDEF , Samuel Ebele Udeabor 5CDEFG , Fawaz Abdul Hamid Baig 5CDEF , Muhammad Ishfaq 5CDEFG , Mohammed Ibrahim 5CDEF , Sulphi Abdul Basheer 5CDEGDOI: 10.12659/MSM.944110
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944110
Table 3 Pairwise intergroup comparison (post hoc) of adhesive failure stress between cast post and various luting agents showing differences between various groups.
| Group comparison | Means | “t” calculated | ‘t’ tabulated (n1+n2-2) | ‘t’ tabulated (n1+n2-2) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gp ZP vs Gp PC | M=15.33M2=13.63 | 2.59* | p | p>0.01 |
| Gp ZP vs Gp GI | M=15.33M=16.07 | 1.27 | p>0.05 | p>0.01 |
| Gp ZP vs Gp RGI | M=15.33M=18.18 | 3.01** | p | p |
| Gp ZP vs Gp RC | M=15.33M=21.46 | 5.56** | p | p |
| Gp PC vs Gp GI | M=13.63M=16.07 | 2.54* | p | p>0.01 |
| Gp PC vs Gp RGI | M=13.63M=18.18 | 6.36** | p | p |
| Gp PC vs Gp RC | M=13.63M=21.46 | 5.98** | p | p |
| Gp GI vs Gp RGI | M=16.07M=18.18 | 3.24** | p | p |
| Gp GI vs Gp RC | M=16.07M=21.46 | 7.69** | p | p |
| Gp RGI vs Gp RC | M=18.18M=21.46 | 4.33** | p | p |
| Gp – group; M – mean adhesive failure stress; p – probability. Codes used for cements: GI – glass ionomer; PC – polycarboxylate; RC – resin cement; RGI – resin modified glass ionomer; ZP – zinc phosphate. Test employed – student ‘t’ test; level of the degree of significance was determined on the value of p < 0.05; * significant; ** highly significant. | ||||