English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

AIMThe purpose was to compare the fracture strength between restorations containing the metal pin (MP) and those containing the glass fiber pin (GFP).MATERIALS AND METHODSForty-five healthy bovine anterior teeth were used in this study. A preparation of 4 mm × 4 mm was created on the incisal surface of each tooth. All teeth were prepared in the same way. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n = 15): group I-control: teeth restored with resin composite (RC) only, without reinforcement; group II-Each tooth was restored with a MP and RC; group III-Each tooth was restored with a GFP and RC. The specimens were left in an oven at a temperature of 37°C for 24 hours before performing the fracture strength tests. The fracture strength test was performed in a universal test machine at an angle of 90°.RESULTSThe Tukey test (p ≤ 0.05) showed that for the variable maximum force (kgf), there was no statistically significant difference among the groups (p = 0.272). The chi-square test showed that groups II and III presented over 70% of cohesive-adhesive type fractures when compared with group I (over 70% of adhesive fractures), and this difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).CONCLUSIONThe pins tested did not increase the fracture resistance of the restorations (RC) in comparison with group I (without reinforcement); however, with the use of the MP and GFP, there was a predominance of cohesive-adhesive fractures (groups II and III).CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEEvaluate if the new GFP can generate greater resistance to fracture of RC restorations.

Effect of using the New Glass Fiber Pin in Resin Composite Restorations