<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD v1.2d1 20170631//EN" "JATS-journalpublishing1.dtd">
<article xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" dtd-version="1.0" article-type="healthcare" lang="en"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">IJCRR</journal-id><journal-id journal-id-type="nlm-ta">I Journ Cur Res Re</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>International Journal of Current Research and Review</journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="pubmed">I Journ Cur Res Re</abbrev-journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="ppub">2231-2196</issn><issn pub-type="opub">0975-5241</issn><publisher><publisher-name>Radiance Research Academy</publisher-name></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">3936</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="doi"/><article-id pub-id-type="doi-url"> http://dx.doi.org/10.31782/IJCRR.2021.131418</article-id><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Healthcare</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Evaluate the Effect of Tapered Canal Preparation on the Retention of Posts Cemented with Resin Cement - An in vitro Study&#13;
</article-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Singh</surname><given-names>Tarun Kumar</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Meena</surname><given-names>Govind Lal</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Chhaparwal</surname><given-names>Amit</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Kumar</surname><given-names>Manish</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jadhav</surname><given-names>Prashant</given-names></name></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Tripathi</surname><given-names>Ranjan Mani</given-names></name></contrib></contrib-group><pub-date pub-type="ppub"><day>20</day><month>07</month><year>2021</year></pub-date><volume>4)</volume><issue/><fpage>224</fpage><lpage>229</lpage><permissions><copyright-statement>This article is copyright of Popeye Publishing, 2009</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2009</copyright-year><license license-type="open-access" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) Licence. You may share and adapt the material, but must give appropriate credit to the source, provide a link to the licence, and indicate if changes were made.</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><p>Introduction: In endodontically treated teeth with less remaining tooth structure posts are inserted to provide stability and retention for a core. The posts retention is dependent on various factors related to post like- cement post and cement dentine interaction, type of luting cement, and taper of the post. Aim: This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of endodontic taper on post retention using parallel-sided prefabricated posts luted with dual-cure resin cement. Methodology: Sixty freshly extracted human maxillary central incisors of approximately the same sizes were selected for this study. The Crown of these teeth was separated at the cementoenamel junction and divided randomly into six groups of ten teeth each. Biomechanical preparation was carried out using different tapered Ni-Ti file systems ranged as 0.02, 004, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10, and0.12 taper. Root canal obturation was done with gutta-percha using the lateral condensation method. Results: Taper 0.02 represents the taper size where a smaller average force was required to remove the post from the root canal. The average force required to remove the post from the root in taper group 0.02 was statistically different from all other taper sizes. Taper size 0.04 required highest average force to remove the post. Average force for size 0.04 was statistically different from the taper size 0.02, 0.06, 0.08, 0.10, 0.12 tapers. Conclusion: The result of the present study indicates that increasing taper of root canal adversely affect the post retention. The findings of this study indicate that instrument taper size preparation of the canal makes a difference to resistance to post dislodgement.&#13;
</p></abstract><kwd-group><kwd>Post Retention</kwd><kwd> Prefabricated Post</kwd><kwd> Polymerization shrinkage</kwd><kwd> Resin Cement</kwd><kwd> Fracture</kwd><kwd> C-Factor</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front></article>
