Evaluation of Retention and Fracture Strength of All Ceramic Crowns with Three Different Esthetic Cast Post–Core Systems

Table 1

Comparison of fracture and retention strength means across the groups.

Group variable	Control (n = 5); mean ± SD; (range)	IPS (n = 5); mean ± SD; (range)	Ceramic (n = 5); mean ± SD; (range)	Composite (n = 5); mean ± SD; (range)	P-
Fracture strength (N)	437.54 ± 70.14; (350.5–516.9)	442.76 ± 72.71; (380.7–559.0)	436.08 ± 45.19; (394.0–512.0)	433.98 ± 75.68; (362.0–552.0)	0.997
Retention strength (N)	178.20 ± 21.03^a; (156–208)	173.60 ± 23.26^a; (145–207)	121.40 ± 13.33^b; (110–144)	82.20 ± 30.66^b; (45–208)	<0.001

Note: P-value derived from one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the retention strength variable, groups with different English letters are statistically different from one another (, according to Turkey’s post hoc test), so the mean of retention strength in the control group was statistically more than the ceramic and composite groups ( and , respectively), and the mean of retention strength in IPS was statistically more than the ceramic and composite groups ( and , respectively). SD, standard deviation.