Premium
Restoration of endodontically treated teeth with major hard tissue loss – influence of post surface design on pull‐out bond strength of fiber‐reinforced composite posts
Author(s) -
Koch Andreas Thomas Alfred,
Binus Stefanie Martina,
Holzschuh Barbara,
Petschelt Anselm,
Powers John M.,
Berthold Christine
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
dental traumatology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.82
H-Index - 81
eISSN - 1600-9657
pISSN - 1600-4469
DOI - 10.1111/edt.12089
Subject(s) - bond strength , dentin , root canal , materials science , dentistry , fiber reinforced composite , composite number , fiber , composite material , orthodontics , adhesive , medicine , layer (electronics)
Aim The aim was to evaluate the influence of post surface design and luting system on bond strength of quartz‐fiber‐reinforced composite posts ( QFRCP s) luted to root canal dentin. Materials and methods Single‐rooted bovine teeth ( n = 650) were randomly assigned (13 groups, n = 50), sectioned, endodontically treated, filled, and post space (length 8 mm) prepared. Custom‐made plain‐surfaced fiber posts ( PSXRO ) and (both RTD ) macroretentive Macro‐Lock Post Illusion X‐ RO ( MLXRO ) were inserted into the post spaces using six luting systems: Ketac Cem (KC), Fuji Plus (FP), RelyX Unicem, Multilink Primer_Multilink, Sealbond Ultima_CoreCem, and LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z. As control, a titanium post was cemented with KC. After water storage (24 h, 37°C), pull‐out test was performed, followed by failure mode assessment. Bond strength was calculated in MP a and analyzed using anova , Dunnett‐T3‐test, and Student's t ‐test with Bonferroni correction. Results Post design and luting system significantly influenced the bond strength [ MP a] ( P < 0.05). Compared with the control 4.3 (1.5), all test groups exhibited higher bond strengths ( P < 0.05), except for group PSXRO /KC 4.2 (1.0). The remaining bond strengths were PSXRO : FP 8.6 (1.5), RelyX Unicem 10.4 (3.4), Multilink Primer_Multilink 12.7 (3.0), SealBond Ultima_CoreCem 12.7 (3.0), LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z 15.7 (2.5), and MLXRO : KC 7.2 (2.2), FP 13.4 (2.5), RelyX Unicem 9.2 (2.9), Multilink Primer_Multilink 12.5 (4.5), SealBond Ultima_CoreCem 13.7 (4.6), LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z 20.6 (2.2). The bond strengths of MLXRO were higher than those of PSXRO when luted with KC, FP, and LuxaBond_LuxaCore Z ( P < 0.05). Conclusion The post surface design and luting system selection influenced the bond strength of conventionally and adhesively luted QFRCP s to bovine root canal dentin.