journal article·2017-05-03

Long-term bond strength of fiber posts cement to dentin with self-adhesive or conventional resin cements

Monique Mendes, Fabiana Mantovani Gomes França, Roberta Tarkany Basting, Cecilia Pedroso Turssi, Flávia Lucisano Botelho do Amaral

Publisher page

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the immediate and the long-term push-out bond strength of glass fiber posts (GFP) cemented with conventional or self-adhesive dual-curing resin cements, at different root depths. Prior to cementation, the GFP (Reforpost #3, Angelus) were etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s followed by silane for 1 min. Thirty canine roots were divided into two groups (n = 15) according to resin cement type: ARC – dual resin cement (RelyX ARC/3M ESPE) combined with an three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (Adper Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose Plus 3M/ESPE) or U200 – self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200/3M ESPE). The manufacturer’s instructions were followed. After 48 h, the roots were cross-sectioned at three different depths, resulting in serial slices corresponding to the cervical, middle, and apical root thirds. Slices were randomly divided into two groups, according to the period of water storage prior to push-out bond strength analysis: 48 h or 180 days. The data (MPa) were analyzed using three-way ANOVA for randomized blocks (p < 0.05), which showed no significant interaction between the three factors (p = 0.716). The main study factors were also proven not significant (cement: p = 0.711; time: 0.288; root third: p = 0.646). In conclusion, root depth, cement type (self-adhesive or conventional), and storage in water for 180 days did not influence the bond strength of GFP to intracanal dentin.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Dental materials and restorations · Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes · Endodontics and Root Canal Treatments

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

References (31)

Show source-provided references
1. 10.1007/s00784-011-0571-610.1007/s00784-011-0571-6 ↗
2. 10.1111/aej.2011.37.issue-210.1111/aej.2011.37.issue-2 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.05.04910.1016/j.tripleo.2010.05.049 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.joen.2010.04.01410.1016/j.joen.2010.04.014 ↗
5. 10.1016/j.jdent.2013.01.01110.1016/j.jdent.2013.01.011 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.dental.2007.05.01210.1016/j.dental.2007.05.012 ↗
7. 10.1007/s00784-009-0376-z10.1007/s00784-009-0376-z ↗
8. 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.02210.1016/j.joen.2012.06.022 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.jpor.2012.05.00310.1016/j.jpor.2012.05.003 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.04.03710.1016/j.dental.2012.04.037 ↗
11. 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60353-410.1016/S0022-3913(13)60353-4 ↗
12. 10.2341/13-070-LIT10.2341/13-070-LIT ↗
13. 10.4047/jap.2014.6.2.8810.4047/jap.2014.6.2.88 ↗
14. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.09.00610.1016/j.dental.2012.09.006 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.dental.2012.08.00410.1016/j.dental.2012.08.004 ↗
16. 10.1111/jerd.2007.19.issue-610.1111/jerd.2007.19.issue-6 ↗
17. Radovic I · J. Adhes. Dent · 2008 · 10 · 251
18. 10.1111/eos.2004.112.issue-410.1111/eos.2004.112.issue-4 ↗
19. 10.1016/j.joen.2006.07.00510.1016/j.joen.2006.07.005 ↗
20. 10.4012/dmj.2009-08910.4012/dmj.2009-089 ↗
21. 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01969.x10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01969.x ↗
22. 10.2341/10-404-L10.2341/10-404-L ↗
23. 10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60341-810.1016/S0022-3913(13)60341-8 ↗
24. Goracci C · J. Adhes. Dent · 2006 · 8 · 327
25. Pulido CA · J. Prosthet. Dent
26. 10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.00210.1016/j.dental.2004.03.002 ↗
27. 10.1016/j.joen.2005.10.06010.1016/j.joen.2005.10.060 ↗
28. 10.1097/01.don.0000153841.23594.9110.1097/01.don.0000153841.23594.91 ↗
29. 10.1016/j.dental.2008.03.00410.1016/j.dental.2008.03.004 ↗
30. 10.1177/15440591050840020410.1177/154405910508400204 ↗
31. Bergoli CD · J. Adhes. Dent · 2012 · 14 · 471