Editorial Type:
Article Category: Laboratory Research
 | 
Online Publication Date: 01 Sept 2013

Effect of Operator Experience on the Outcome of Fiber Post Cementation With Different Resin Cements

,
,
,
,
, and
Page Range: 555 – 564
DOI: 10.2341/11-494-L
Save
Download PDF

SUMMARY

Objectives

To evaluate the influence of operator experience (dentist vs student) and cementation system (Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose [SBMP] + RelyX ARC [1]; Adper Single Bond 2 [SB] + RelyX ARC [2] and RelyX U100 [3]) on the push-out bond strength (BS) of fiber post to radicular dentin.

Materials and Methods

The roots of 48 extracted human maxillary central incisors were prepared and divided into six groups (n=8), according to combination of the above factors. Glass fiber posts were cemented in accordance with the instructions of the manufacturer of each cementation system. After water storage at 37°C for one week, the roots were cross-sectioned into six 1-mm thick slices and the push-out test was performed (0.5 mm/min). Data were statistically analyzed by two-way analysis of variance and Tukey tests (α=0.05). The BS results obtained by dentist and student for each cementation system were compared using the Student t-test (α=0.05).

Results

Higher BS means were observed for the expert operators, irrespective of the cementation system used (p=0.006). RelyX U100 showed the highest bond strength, but it did not differ from SBMP + RelyX ARC. The Student t-test revealed that only RelyX U100 was not affected by the operator's experience.

Conclusion

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the self-adhesive cement RelyX U100 showed the highest bond strength to the root canal in the student's group, and its performance was not affected by the operator's experience.

INTRODUCTION

Teeth with extensive loss of dental structure frequently require endodontic treatment, and in the majority of cases, this leads to the use of intraradicular retainers and filling cores to retain the final restoration.1 Moreover, to restore these teeth, an interesting option has been to use materials with a modulus of elasticity similar to that of dentin resulting in biomimetism between the properties of dentin and the post/cement set. This favors a more uniform stress distribution in the root structure and thus reduces the risk of root fractures.2-4 However, bonding posts to root walls is compromised by many factors such as timing of post space preparation and cementation,5 type of post and its adaptation to the post space,6,7 type of adhesive and cementation system,8,9 and operative procedures.10 Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve direct irradiation by light in deep regions of the root canal, and to overcome this, it is necessary to use resin cements with chemical or dual activation.11

As this procedure is technically complicated, the operator's experience may directly affect the quality of this restorative procedure. It has indeed been proved that there is a variability in the results of adhesive procedures resulting from the operator.12,13 Other authors have demonstrated that failure to follow the manufacturers' recommendations also affects the bond strength results.14,15 Nevertheless, there is little related information in the literature, on how the operator's experience may influence the success or failure of procedures for adhesive cementation of intraradicular posts.16

One may hypothesize that materials/techniques with fewer bonding steps may be less sensitive to technique variables. Differently from the traditional resin cements, self-adhesive materials require no previous treatment of the dental substrate, since the stages of acid etching and adhesive system application have been eliminated.17 Based on this, the aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of the operator's experience and three different cementation systems on the push-out bond strength to dentin. Two null hypotheses were tested: 1) no significant difference would be detected among the push-out bond strengths to dentin produced by different cementation systems, and 2) the operator's experience would not affect the push-out bond strength to dentin for different cementation systems.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-eight extracted human maxillary central incisors were stored in distilled water at 4°C and used within 6 months after extraction (ISO/TS 11405).18 The inclusion criteria were absence of root caries and cracks, absence of restorations and previous endodontic treatments, posts or crowns, absence of severe root curvatures, and a root length measured from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) of 14 ± 1 mm.

Specimen Preparation

Teeth were cross-sectioned immediately below the CEJ using a low-speed diamond saw (Isomet 1000, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA). A crown-down technique was used for instrumentation with Gates Glidden drills No. 2 to No. 4. Apical enlargement was performed to size 40 and .06 taper. Roots were dried with paper points, filled with AH Plus (DeTrey, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) and tapered gutta-percha points, using the warm vertical condensation technique. The root access was temporarily filled with Vitro Fil (DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil). The roots were stored for one week at 37°C in 100% humidity.

After one week, the gutta-percha was removed, leaving 4 mm of the apical seal. The post space was then prepared with a low-speed bur provided by the post manufacturer (Tenax Fiber Trans Drills, Coltène/Whaledent, Cuyahoga Falls, OH, USA) up to a fixed depth of 10 mm from the CEJ. One bur was used for only five preparations. All specimens were prepared by one experienced operator in a standardized procedure. The canals were irrigated with 10 mL of distilled water and dried with paper points. To make sure that there was no residual gutta-percha on the walls of the post space preparation, a radiographic evaluation was performed (Figure 1).

Figure 1. . Radiographic evaluation of the radicular canals.Figure 1. . Radiographic evaluation of the radicular canals.Figure 1. . Radiographic evaluation of the radicular canals.
Figure 1.  Radiographic evaluation of the radicular canals.

Citation: Operative Dentistry 38, 5; 10.2341/11-494-L

Six experimental conditions resulting from the combination of the main factors, operator experience (two levels) and cementation system (three levels), were evaluated. Expert dentists (eight dentists specialized in Restorative Dentistry) and undergraduate students (eight undergraduate students in the fourth year of the course) were selected to perform the fiber post cementation. Students from the fourth undergraduate year were selected because they had been taught restorative dentistry one year earlier and had learned to perform fiber post cementation procedures. They were given the three cementation systems shown in Figure 2. Three glass fiber posts, one of each material, were luted by each operator. Before cementation procedures, each glass fiber post (cylindrical with tapered end [Tenax Fiber Trans Esthetic Post System, Coltène/Whaledent]) was marked at a distance of 13 mm from the apical end and was horizontally sectioned at this point, using a water-cooled diamond rotary cutting instrument. Ten millimeters of the post were cemented inside the root canal, while the other cervical 3 mm served as a guide to standardize the distance of the light curing device from the cervical root region. The posts were tried in, cleaned with alcohol, and cemented in accordance with the instructions provided by the manufacturer of each cementation system described in Table 1, which were given to all operators, who were instructed to follow them strictly. All bonding procedures were performed on the same mannequin, with the purpose of simulating a clinical setting. The composition of the materials used for the cementation procedure is described in Table 2.

Figure 2. . Experimental flowchart.Figure 2. . Experimental flowchart.Figure 2. . Experimental flowchart.
Figure 2.  Experimental flowchart.

Citation: Operative Dentistry 38, 5; 10.2341/11-494-L

Table 1:  Bonding Procedures
Table 1: 
Table 2:  Composition of the Materials
Table 2: 

The adhesive systems (Table 1) were applied by means of microbrushes (Vigodent, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil), and the resin cements were applied with a Centrix syringe (DFL, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil). A LED light curing device (L.E.Demetron I/Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA) was used for activation purposes (800 mW/cm2). Specimens were then stored in water at 37°C for one week.

Preparation of Sections for Push-Out Bond Strength Test

After this, the roots were embedded in polyvinyl chloride tubes using acrylic resin, and the portion of each root was sectioned perpendicular to the long axis into six 1-mm serial slices. Subsequently, all specimens were observed with a light stereomicroscope at 10× magnification to discard slices with artifact defects.

The coronal side of each slice was identified and its thickness measured with a digital caliper (Mitutoyo, Tokyo, Japan). Images from both sides of the slides were recorded with an optical microscope (Olympus, model BX 51, Olympus, Tokyo, Japan) at 40× magnification to measure the coronal and apical post diameters and allow the bond area to be calculated using UTHSCSA ImageTool 3.0 software (Department of Dental Diagnostic Science at The University of Texas Health Science Center, San Antonio, TX, USA).

Each slice was subjected to a push-out test using a universal loading device (AG-I, Shimadzu Autograph, Tokyo, Japan) at 0.5 mm/min with the load applied in the apical-coronal direction until the post was dislodged. The maximum failure load was recorded in Newton (N) and converted into MPa by dividing the applied load by the bonded area (SL). The latter, being the lateral surface of a truncated cone, was calculated by the formula: SL= π(R + r)[(h2 + (R – r)2]0.5, where π = 3.14, R = coronal post radius, r = apical post radius, and h = root slice thickness.

Failure Mode Analysis

The failure modes of all specimens were evaluated under a stereomicroscope (40× magnification), and approximately 30% of the specimens from each group were randomly selected and processed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. Slices were rinsed in a 95% alcohol solution for one minute, air-dried, mounted on a metal stub and sputter-coated with gold-palladium (Polaron SC7620, Quorum Technologies Ltd, East Sussex, UK) for five minutes at 10 mA. Each specimen was examined by SEM (JSM 6360LV, Jeol Ltd, Tokyo, Japan) at a 15-kV accelerating voltage at different magnifications (40× to 200×) and photographs were taken. Two independent operators evaluated the failure modes according to the following criteria: 1) adhesive failure between dentin and luting cement, 2) adhesive failure between luting cement and post, 3) cohesive failure within luting cement, 4) cohesive failure within the post, 5) cohesive failure within dentin, and 6) mixed failure.

Statistical Analysis

The mean bond strength (BS) (MPa) of all slices originating from the same tooth was first averaged in order to provide one mean for each tooth. These values were then evaluated by a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey test (α=0.05) for pairwise comparisons.

A second statistical analysis with a more powerful statistical test was performed to evaluate the effect of the operator's experience on the BS data of each cementation system, which was compared using the Student t-test (α=0.05). Thirdly, the pairwise comparison of the fracture patterns was analyzed by Fisher exact test (α=0.05).

RESULTS

None of the specimens observed presented artifacts caused by the sectioning procedure; therefore, all slices were tested. The mean cross-sectional areas ranged from 3.0 to 6.0 mm2, and no difference was detected among groups (p>0.05).

The main factors operator experience and cementation system (p=0.006 and p=0.0006, respectively) were significant. Higher push-out BS means (MPa) were observed for expert operators (12.9 ± 7.6) in comparison with the undergraduate students (10.6 ± 6.7) (Table 3) irrespective of the cementation system used (p=0.006). With regard to the cement, higher BS means were observed for U100 (13.9 ± 7.3) irrespective of the operator's experience. The lowest means were observed for SB + ARC (9.8 ± 6.8) (p<0.05). SBMP + ARC (11.8 ± 7.4) had an intermediate performance and it was similar to the other groups (p>0.05). The Student t-test revealed that the push-out means of U100 were not affected by the operator's experience (p>0.05).

Table 3:  Means and Standard Deviations (MPa) of Push-Out Bond Strength Values for the Experimental Groups
Table 3: 

No significant difference in the fracture pattern was observed among materials in the undergraduate student group (Table 4). With regard to the expert operators, U100 showed more mixed failures than the other two materials. Most of the mixed failures (70%) occurred between resin cement and dentin with cohesive failure of the cement. A representative image of the most prevalent fracture mode can be seen in Figure 3.

Table 4:  Distribution of the Fracture Pattern (%) Among the Different Experimental Groups
Table 4: 
Figure 3. . Scanning electron micrographs of representative fracture patterns. A mixed failure mode can be seen in low (A) and high (B) magnification. In (B) one can observe the adhesive failure between the cement and the dentin interface (pointer) along with a cohesive failure within cement (arrow head) and a fissure in the post (asterisk). An adhesive failure mode can be seen in low (C) and high magnification (D). In (D) one can observe that the failure occurred between the cement and dentin (pointer). Abbreviations: C, cement; D, dentin; P, post.Figure 3. . Scanning electron micrographs of representative fracture patterns. A mixed failure mode can be seen in low (A) and high (B) magnification. In (B) one can observe the adhesive failure between the cement and the dentin interface (pointer) along with a cohesive failure within cement (arrow head) and a fissure in the post (asterisk). An adhesive failure mode can be seen in low (C) and high magnification (D). In (D) one can observe that the failure occurred between the cement and dentin (pointer). Abbreviations: C, cement; D, dentin; P, post.Figure 3. . Scanning electron micrographs of representative fracture patterns. A mixed failure mode can be seen in low (A) and high (B) magnification. In (B) one can observe the adhesive failure between the cement and the dentin interface (pointer) along with a cohesive failure within cement (arrow head) and a fissure in the post (asterisk). An adhesive failure mode can be seen in low (C) and high magnification (D). In (D) one can observe that the failure occurred between the cement and dentin (pointer). Abbreviations: C, cement; D, dentin; P, post.
Figure 3.  Scanning electron micrographs of representative fracture patterns. A mixed failure mode can be seen in low (A) and high (B) magnification. In (B) one can observe the adhesive failure between the cement and the dentin interface (pointer) along with a cohesive failure within cement (arrow head) and a fissure in the post (asterisk). An adhesive failure mode can be seen in low (C) and high magnification (D). In (D) one can observe that the failure occurred between the cement and dentin (pointer). Abbreviations: C, cement; D, dentin; P, post.

Citation: Operative Dentistry 38, 5; 10.2341/11-494-L

DISCUSSION

In this study, it was observed that the use of a simplified etch-and-rinse (ER) adhesive SB together with ARC produced lower bond strength in comparison with U100, which led to rejection of the first null hypothesis. An adverse chemical interaction has been reported between unpolymerized acidic resin monomers in the oxygen inhibition layer of simplified ER adhesives and the tertiary amine present in auto/dual-cured composites, which may be responsible for incompatibility among these systems.19-21 Although the materials evaluated in this study (SB and ARC system) were not tested in the cited studies,19-21 one cannot rule out the possibility that this may be a plausible explanation, especially in the apical region of the root canal where the conversion of the dual resin cement practically relies on chemical activation, as light does not reach this area properly.22,23 Moreover, simplified ER systems have been shown to function as permeable membranes,21-24 allowing water movement across their structure even after polymerization,25,26 which may adversely affect the coupling of auto/dual-cured resin cements to the dentin surface.24,25

To attain proper polymerization in such situations, a chemically activated component of a dual-catalyst system was shown be effective.27 This was partially confirmed in this study since the use of three-step ER with the self-cure bottle of the SBMP system allowed intermediate push-out BS values to be obtained, a finding previously demonstrated in others studies.8-28 The additional chemical polymerization of the three-step ER self-cure adhesive system may also compensate for the light attenuation that occurs during the light polymerization step in a root canal.29,30

Despite the tendency of SBMP to obtain high BS values, the foregoing reasons do not explain why this system was similar to SB. The use of chemical coinitiators in the SBMP completely eliminates the adverse chemical interaction reported for simplified ER adhesives (such as SB) and self/dual-cured composites, but the inherent permeability of the polymerized adhesive still precludes optimal coupling to bonded hydrated dentin.31 Furthermore, these two adhesives rely on the same bonding strategy, the ER approach, which requires the dentin substrate to be kept moist after acid conditioning.32 Due to limited access, it is difficult to control moisture within the root canal, and this makes the procedure more critical. Furthermore, the ideal degree of moisture varies widely among the manufacturers' instructions and also depends on the solvent used in each system.33

The foregoing discussion makes the two ER adhesives sensitive to the operator's experience, as observed in the present investigation, leading to rejection of the second null hypothesis, since expert operators achieved higher BS results than undergraduate students. This finding has been observed in the literature when bonding to coronal dentin.12,13 However, contrary to the results of the present study, Simonetti and others16 did not observe any influence of the operator's experience on the push-out BS of a dual-cured resin cement associated with Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply). It is speculated that the low number of operators (only one in each experimental condition) and specimens used by the authors reduced the power of the study to an extent that prevented the authors from observing a significant effect of the operator's experience on the BS. As data from push-out BS present high standard deviations, usually exceeding 50% of the means,1,5,6,16,28,34 the sample size should be high enough to detect subtle differences between groups.

The self-adhesive cement U100 does not require rinsing, solving the problem of substrate moisture control and thus simplifying the clinical procedure. The high BS values observed for U100 in this study and in others1,7-9,28,35-37 can be attributed to the chemical interaction between monomer acidic phosphate groups and dentin/enamel hydroxyapatite17 and to low shrinkage of the material,38,39 leading to closer contact of the resin cement with the root canal walls and higher frictional resistance.40,41 Unfortunately, there is no consensus in the literature with regard to the superiority of this material when compared with conventional bonding strategies.5,6,37,41,42 The reason for this controversy should be further investigated.

With regard to the influence of the operator's expertise on the success or failure of self-adhesive cements used for post cementation, little information is available in the literature. The reduced number of clinical steps and no need to keep the dentin substrate moist before application of the material might explain why U100 was not sensitive to the operator's experience in the present investigation. It may be said that for different operators, reducing the number of steps in the bonding procedure is an important factor in obtaining a more reliable and stronger bond between the resin and dentin. It is worth pointing out that the fact that U100 was not affected by the operator's experience in an in vitro setting, does not necessarily mean that this will be the case in a clinical scenario. Further clinical studies should be conducted to evaluate this aspect.

The high number of operators in the present study was a favorable condition for the greater reliability of the data. However, this study also has some limitations. The test specimen crowns were not completely restored and no thermal cycling or mechanical stressing was applied. These factors may limit the direct application of the study results to clinical conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that:

  • Higher BS means were observed for expert operators in comparison with the undergraduate students, irrespective of the cementation system used.

  • RelyX U100 showed the highest bond strength, but it did not differ from that of SBMP + RelyX ARC.

  • The self-adhesive cement used (RelyX U100) was not sensitive to the operator's experience.

Acknowledgments

This study was partially supported by CAPES and CNPq under grants 301937/2009-5 and 301891/2010-9. The authors are very grateful to Prof Dr Fabio André dos Santos for his support with the initial statistical analyses, Dr Milton Domingos Michel for his support in the SEM analysis, and 3M ESPE and Cóltene for the donation of the cements and posts, respectively, used in the present study.

Conflict of Interest

The authors of this article certify that they have no proprietary, financial, or other personal interest of any nature or kind in any product, service, and/or company that is presented in this article.

REFERENCES

  • 1
    Zicari F,
    Couthino E,
    De Munck J,
    Poitevin A,
    Scotti R,
    Naert I,
    &
    Van MeerbeekB
    (2008) Bonding effectiveness and sealing ability of fiber-post bondingDental Materials24(
    7
    ) 967-977.
  • 2
    Qualtrough AJ,
    &
    ManocciF
    (2003) Tooth-colored post systems: A reviewOperative Dentistry28(
    1
    ) 86-91.
  • 3
    Hayashi M,
    &
    EbisuS
    (2008) Key factors in achieving firm adhesion in post-core restorationsJapanese Dental Science Review44(
    1
    ) 22-28.
  • 4
    Kremeier K,
    Fasen L,
    Klaiber B,
    &
    HofmannN
    (2008) Influence of endodontic post type (glass fiber, quartz fiber or gold) and luting material on push-out bond strength to dentinin vitro Dental Materials24(
    5
    ) 660-666.
  • 5
    Sadek FT,
    Goracci C,
    Monticelli F,
    Grandini S,
    Cury AH,
    Tay F,
    &
    FerrariM
    (2006) Immediate and 24-hour evaluation of the interfacial strengths of fiber postsJournal of Endodontics32(
    12
    ) 1174-1177.
  • 6
    Kececi AD,
    Kaya U,
    &
    AdanirN
    (2008) Micro push-out bond strengths of four fiber-reinforced composite post systems and 2 luting materialsOral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontics105(
    1
    ) 121-128.
  • 7
    Mumcu E,
    Erdemir U,
    &
    TopcuFT
    (2010) Comparison of micro push-out bond strengths of two fiber posts luted using simplified adhesive approachesDental Materials Journal29(
    3
    ) 286-296.
  • 8
    Amaral M,
    Santini MF,
    Wandscher V,
    Amaral R,
    &
    ValandroLF
    (2009) An in vitro comparison of different cementation strategies on the pull-out strength of a glass fiber postOperative Dentistry34(
    4
    ) 443-451.
  • 9
    Jongsma LA,
    Bolhuis PB,
    Pallav P,
    Feilzer AJ,
    &
    KleverlaandCJ
    (2010) Benefits of a two-step cementation procedure for prefabricated fiber postsJournal of Adhesive Dentistry12(
    1
    ) 55-62.
  • 10
    D'Arcangelo C,
    D'Amario M,
    Vadini M,
    Zazzeroni S,
    De Angelis F,
    &
    CaputiS
    (2008) An evaluation of luting agent application technique effect on fibre post retentionJournal of Dentistry36(
    4
    ) 235-240.
  • 11
    Foxton RM,
    Nakajima M,
    Tagami J,
    &
    MiuraH
    (2003) Bonding of photo and dual-cure adhesives to root canal dentinOperative Dentistry28(
    5
    ) 543-551.
  • 12
    Sano H,
    Kanemura N,
    Burrow MF,
    Inai N,
    Yamada T,
    &
    TagamiJ
    (1998) Effect of operator variability on dentin adhesion: Students vs. dentistsDental Materials Journal17(
    1
    ) 51-58.
  • 13
    Miyazaki M,
    Onose H,
    &
    MooreBK
    (2000) Effect of operator variability on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systemsAmerican Journal of Dentistry13(
    2
    ) 101-104.
  • 14
    Peschke A,
    Blunck U,
    &
    RouletJF
    (2000) Influence of incorrect application of a water-based adhesive system on the marginal adaptation of Class V restorationsAmerican Journal of Dentistry13(
    5
    ) 239-244.
  • 15
    Peutzfeldt A,
    &
    AsmussenE
    (2002) Adhesive systems: Effect on bond strength of incorrect useJournal of Adhesive Dentistry4(
    3
    ) 233-242.
  • 16
    Simonetti M,
    Radovic I,
    Vano M,
    Chieffi N,
    Goracci C,
    Tognini F,
    &
    FerrariM
    (2006) The influence of operator variability on adhesive cementation of fiber postsJournal of Adhesive Dentistry8(
    6
    ) 421-425.
  • 17
    Radovic I,
    Monticelli F,
    Goracci C,
    Vulicevic ZR,
    &
    FerrariM
    (2008) Self-adhesive resin cements: A literature reviewJournal of Adhesive Dentistry10(
    4
    ) 251-258.
  • 18
    ISO-Standards (2003) CD TR 11405 Guidance on Testing of Adhesion to Tooth StructureGeneve: International Organization for Standardization
  • 19
    Sanares AM,
    Itthagarun A,
    King NM,
    Tay FR,
    &
    PashleyDH
    (2001) Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured compositesDental Materials17(
    6
    ) 542-556.
  • 20
    Suh BI,
    Feng L,
    Pashley DH,
    &
    TayFR
    (2003) Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part III. Effect of acidic resin monomersJournal of Adhesive Dentistry5(
    4
    ) 267-282.
  • 21
    Tay FR,
    Pashley DH,
    Yiu CK,
    Sanares AM,
    &
    WeiSH
    (2003) Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Single-step self-etching adhesiveJournal of Adhesive Dentistry5(
    1
    ) 27-40.
  • 22
    Faria e Silva AL,
    Arias VG,
    Soares LE,
    Martin AA,
    &
    MartinsLR
    (2007) Influence of fiber-post translucency on the degree of conversion of a dual-cured resin cementJournal of Endodontics33(
    3
    ) 303-305.
  • 23
    dos Santos Alves Morgan LF,
    Peixoto RT,
    de Castro Albuquerque R,
    Santos Corrêa MF,
    de Abreu Poletto LT,
    &
    PinottiMB
    (2008) Light transmission through a translucent fiber postJournal of Endodontics34(
    3
    ) 299-302.
  • 24
    Tay FR,
    Pashley DH,
    Suh BI,
    Carvalho RM,
    &
    ItthagarunA
    (2002) Single-step adhesives are permeable membranesJournal of Dentistry30(
    7–8
    ) 371-382.
  • 25
    Chersoni S,
    Acquaviva GL,
    Prati C,
    Ferrari M,
    Grandini S,
    Pashley DH,
    &
    TayFR
    (2005) In vivo fluid movement through dentin adhesives in endodontically treated teethJournal of Dental Research84(
    3
    ) 223-227.
  • 26
    Bonfante EA,
    Pegoraro LF,
    Góes MF,
    &
    CarvalhoRM
    (2008) SEM observation of the bond integrity of fiber-reinforced composite posts cemented into root canalsDental Materials24(
    4
    ) 483-491.
  • 27
    Peutzfeldt A
    (1995) Dual-cure resin cements: In vitro wear and effect of quantity of remaining double bonds, filler volume, and light curingActa Odontologica Scandinavica53(
    1
    ) 29-34.
  • 28
    Gomes GM,
    Gomes OMM,
    Reis A,
    Gomes JC,
    Loguercio AD,
    &
    CalixtoAL
    (2011) Regional bond strengths to root canal dentin of fiber posts luted with three cementation systemsBrazilian Dental Journal22(
    6
    ) 460-467.
  • 29
    Mallmann A,
    Jacques LB,
    Valandro LF,
    Mathias P,
    &
    MuenchA
    (2005) Microtensile bond strength of light- and self-cured adhesive systems to intraradicular dentin using a translucent fiber postOperative Dentistry30(
    4
    ) 500-506.
  • 30
    Valandro LF,
    Filho OD,
    Valera MC,
    &
    de AraújoMA
    (2005) The effect of adhesive systems on the pull-out strength of a fiber glass-reinforced composite post system in bovine teethJournal of Adhesive Dentistry7(
    4
    ) 331-336.
  • 31
    Tay FR,
    Suh BI,
    Pashley DH,
    Prati C,
    Chuang SF,
    &
    LiF
    (2003) Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified 1 step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle, total-etch adhesiveJournal of Adhesive Dentistry5(
    2
    ) 91-105.
  • 32
    Nakajima M,
    Kanemura N,
    Pereira PNR,
    Tagami J,
    &
    PashleyDH
    (2000) Comparative microtensile bond strength and SEM analysis of bonding to wet and dry dentinAmerican Journal of Dentistry13(
    6
    ) 324-328.
  • 33
    Reis A,
    Loguercio AD,
    Azevedo CL,
    Carvalho RM,
    da Julio Singer M,
    &
    GrandeRH
    (2003) Moisture spectrum of demineralized dentin for adhesive systems with different solvent- basesJournal of Adhesive Dentistry5(
    3
    ) 183-192.
  • 34
    Goracci C,
    Sadek FT,
    Fabianelli A,
    Tay FR,
    &
    FerrariM
    (2005) Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts to intraradicular dentinOperative Dentistry30(
    5
    ) 627-635.
  • 35
    Naumann M,
    Reich S,
    Nothdurft FP,
    Beuer F,
    Schirrmeister JF,
    &
    DietrichT
    (2008) Survival of glass fiber post restorations over 5 yearsAmerican Journal of Dentistry21(
    4
    ) 267-272.
  • 36
    Bitter K,
    Paris S,
    Pfuertner C,
    Neumann K,
    &
    KielbassaAM
    (2009) Morphological and bond strength evaluation of different resin cements to root dentinEuropean Journal of Oral Sciences117(
    3
    ) 326-333.
  • 37
    Leme AA,
    Coutinho M,
    Insaurralde AF,
    Scaffa PM,
    &
    da SilvaLM
    (2011) The influence of time and cement type on push-out bond strength of fiber posts to root dentinOperative Dentistry36(
    6
    ) 643-648.
  • 38
    Spinell T,
    Schedle A,
    &
    WattsDC
    (2009) Polymerization shrinkage kinetics of dimethacrylate resin-cementsDental Materials25(
    8
    ) 1058-1066.
  • 39
    Kitzmüller K,
    Graf A,
    Watts D,
    &
    SchedleA
    (2011) Setting kinetics and shrinkage of self-adhesive resin cements depend on cure-mode and temperatureDental Materials27(
    6
    ) 544-551.
  • 40
    Bouillaguet S,
    Troesch S,
    Wataha JC,
    Krejci I,
    Meyer JM,
    &
    PashleyDH
    (2003) Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentinDental Materials19(
    3
    ) 199-205.
  • 41
    Goracci C,
    Fabianelli A,
    Sadek FT,
    Papacchini F,
    Tay FR,
    &
    FerrariM
    (2005) The contribution of friction to the dislocation resistance of bonded fiber postsJournal of Endodontics31(
    8
    ) 608-612.
  • 42
    Mazzoni A,
    Marchesi G,
    Cadenaro M,
    Mazzotti G,
    Di Lenarda R,
    Ferrari M,
    &
    BreschiL
    (2009) Push-out stress for fibre posts luted using different adhesive strategiesEuropean Journal of Oral Sciences117(
    4
    ) 447-453.
Copyright: Operative Dentistry, Inc. 2013
Figure 1. 
Figure 1. 

Radiographic evaluation of the radicular canals.

Figure 2. 
Figure 2. 

Experimental flowchart.

Figure 3. 
Figure 3. 

Scanning electron micrographs of representative fracture patterns. A mixed failure mode can be seen in low (A) and high (B) magnification. In (B) one can observe the adhesive failure between the cement and the dentin interface (pointer) along with a cohesive failure within cement (arrow head) and a fissure in the post (asterisk). An adhesive failure mode can be seen in low (C) and high magnification (D). In (D) one can observe that the failure occurred between the cement and dentin (pointer). Abbreviations: C, cement; D, dentin; P, post.

Contributor Notes

*

Giovana Mongruel Gomes, PhD student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

Osnara Maria Mongruel Gomes, DDS, MS, PhD, professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

Alessandra Reis, DDS, PhD, professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

João Carlos Gomes, DDS, MS, PhD, professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

Alessandro Dourado Loguercio, DDS, MS, PhD, professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

Abraham Lincoln Calixto, DDS, MS, PhD, professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil

*Corresponding author: St Engenheiro Schamber 452, ap 21 Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil CEP 84010-340; e-mail: giomongruel@gmail.com
Accepted: 05 Sept 2012
  • Download PDF