Copyright
©The Author(s) 2018.
World J Clin Cases. Mar 16, 2018; 6(3): 27-34
Published online Mar 16, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27
Published online Mar 16, 2018. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27
Table 4 Loss of composite crown retention on teeth treated with polyethylene fibre posts (n = 31) and zirconia-rich glass fibre posts (n = 31) and direct resin composite restorations n (%)
| Time (mo) | 6 | 12 | 24 | 36 | |||||
| Materials | Polyethylene | Zirconia | Polyethylene | Zirconia | Polyethylene | Zirconia | Polyethylene | Zirconia | |
| Loss of retention | A | 29 (93.5) | 30 (96.8) | 27 (87.1) | 28 (90.3) | 27 (87.1) | 27 (87.1) | 27 (87.1) | 27 (87.1) |
| B | 2 (6.5) | 1 (3.2) | 4 (12.9) | 3 (9.7) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (12.9) | 4 (12.9) | |
| C | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| NS | NS | NS | NS | ||||||
- Citation: Ayna B, Ayna E, Çelenk S, Başaran EG, Yılmaz BD, Tacir İH, Tuncer MC. Comparison of the clinical efficacy of two different types of post systems which were restored with composite restorations. World J Clin Cases 2018; 6(3): 27-34
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v6/i3/27.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v6.i3.27