30 April 2024 : Laboratory 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 SinghDOI: 10.12659/MSM.944110
Med Sci Monit 2024; 30:e944110
Table 2 Comparative differences in mean values and one-way ANOVA results for adhesive failure stress obtained for different luting agents between cast post and natural tooth.
| Independent variable | Experimental groups | N (number) | Mean(Kg) | SD | M.S.E | df | F-ratio | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Luting agents | Gp ZP | 10 | 15.33 | 1.30 | 0.43 | 4 | 37.50092 | <.00001* |
| Gp PC | 10 | 13.63 | 1.62 | 0.54 | 4 | |||
| Gp GI | 10 | 16.07 | 1.35 | 0.45 | 4 | |||
| Gp RGI | 10 | 18.17 | 1.64 | 0.55 | 4 | |||
| Gp RC | 10 | 21.46 | 1.80 | 0.60 | 4 | |||
| N – number; kg – kilogram; SD – standard deviation; MSE – Mean Standard Error; df – degree of freedom; F – degree of variance in one-way ANOVA test; p – probability; Gp – group. Codes used for cements: GI – glass ionomer; PC – polycarboxylate; RC – resin cement; RGI – resin modified glass ionomer; ZP – zinc phosphate. Test employed – one-way ANOVA test; level of the degree of significance was determined on the value of p * – significant. | ||||||||






