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 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, Mohammad Ishfaq 5CDEFG, Mohammed Ibrahim 5CDEF, Sulphi Abdul Basheer 5CDEG
DOI: 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<0.05 | 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<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp ZP vs Gp RC | M=15.33M=21.46 | 5.56** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp PC vs Gp GI | M=13.63M=16.07 | 2.54* | p<0.05 | p>0.01 |
| Gp PC vs Gp RGI | M=13.63M=18.18 | 6.36** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp PC vs Gp RC | M=13.63M=21.46 | 5.98** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp GI vs Gp RGI | M=16.07M=18.18 | 3.24** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp GI vs Gp RC | M=16.07M=21.46 | 7.69** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| Gp RGI vs Gp RC | M=18.18M=21.46 | 4.33** | p<0.05 | p<0.01 |
| 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. | ||||