title: Effect of eugenol-based root canal sealers on retention of prefabricated metal posts luted with resin cement.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study evaluated the effect of two different eugenol-based root canal sealers on the retention of prefabricated metal posts luted with adhesive resin cement.
  
  
  METHODS
  Thirty prefabricated ParaPosts randomly divided among three groups of 10 each were luted into extracted single-rooted teeth with adhesive resin cement. Two of the groups had been obturated with Gutta-Percha and one of two eugenol-based root canal sealers (Endofil and Tubli-Seal), respectively. The third group was not obturated and served as the control. The forces required for dislodgment of posts from their prepared post spaces were recorded using a universal testing machine. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's multiple range test was used to determine the mean differences.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Endofil and Tubli-Seal groups demonstrated significantly reduced retention compared to the unobturated (control) group (P < 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Eugenol-based sealers significantly reduced the retention of prefabricated posts luted with adhesive resin cement.
authors: Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
authors: Khalil
authors: K
authors: Al-Ali
references: J Dent Res. 1984 Jun;63(6):881-4
references: 6588071
references: J Dent Res. 1975 Mar-Apr;54(2):227-31
references: 1054331
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1984 Jul;52(1):28-35
references: 6379161
references: J Endod. 2001 Jun;27(6):421-3
references: 11487139
references: J Endod. 2000 Jun;26(6):341-4
references: 11199751
references: Int Endod J. 2002 Apr;35(4):372-8
references: 12059939
references: J Prosthodont. 2002 Sep;11(3):168-75
references: 12237797
references: Int J Prosthodont. 2003 May-Jun;16(3):290-4
references: 12854794
references: J Dent. 1982 Jun;10(2):154-65
references: 7050196
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1989 Jan;61(1):17-24
references: 2644418
references: Am J Dent. 1992 Jun;5(3):147-50
references: 1388953
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1985 Nov;54(5):649-52
references: 3903134
references: Braz Dent J. 2006;17(2):130-3
references: 16924340
references: Int J Prosthodont. 1999 May-Jun;12(3):255-62
references: 10635194
references: Quintessence Int. 1985 May;16(5):357-60
references: 3898190
references: Quintessence Int. 1992 Dec;23(12):839-44
references: 1305302
references: Quintessence Int. 2007 Mar;38(3):e164-8
references: 17510726
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1983 Aug;50(2):211-5
references: 6352909
references: J Endod. 2001 Dec;27(12):768-71
references: 11771587
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1988 Mar;59(3):318-20
references: 3279189
references: J Prosthodont. 2000 Sep;9(3):137-41
references: 11179464
references: Int J Prosthodont. 2001 Jul-Aug;14(4):355-63
references: 11508092
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1996 May;75(5):506-11
references: 8709015
references: J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Jul;66(1):45-9
references: 1941673
references: Endod Dent Traumatol. 1992 Feb;8(1):26-9
references: 1396358
references: J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):13-7
references: 11487157