Push-out bond strength and failure mode of single adjustable and customized glass fiber posts

The effect of touch-cure polymerization on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts

Objective

To assess the impact of a novel touch-cure polymerization of dual-curing resin cement on the push-out bonding strength (PBS) of the conventional prefabricated glass fiber-reinforced composite (GFRC) and custom-made glass fiber (GF) posts at different root sections.

Methods

Forty single-root mandibular first premolars were treated endodontically and prepared for receiving the posts, the prepared roots were randomly divided into 4 groups. Group I: A prefabricated (GFRC) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE resin cement with adhesive-enhancing primer (AEP). Group II: A prefabricated (GFRC) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE without AEP. Group III: A customized (GF) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE with AEP. Group IV: A customized (GF) post was cemented by G-CEM ONE without AEP. (n = 10 for each group). The PBS was tested with a universal testing machine, and the values were analyzed with (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test at a P ≤ 0.05 significance level.

Results

Group III revealed the greatest PBS values, followed by Group IV, Group I, and finally, Group II showed the lowest PBS values. The coronal root slices showed the highest PBS in comparison with the middle and apical third.

Conclusion

The touch-cure polymerization improved the PBS of the prefabricated and customized fiber posts. Therefore, ‟touch and cure" cement may be considered a clinical alternative to conventional types of resin cement. The customized (GF) posts exhibited a higher PBS than the prefabricated (GFRC). The combination of customized posts and G-CEM ONE with AEP is recommended as a new strategic approach to improve interfacial adhesion.

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Three Glass Fiber Post-systems Cemented to Large Root Canals

The aim of this study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength and the failure mode of single adjustable posts (SPLENDOR SAP), anatomical posts (AP), or computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing (CAD-CAM) posts cemented to flared root canal dentin with self-adhesive dual-cure resin cement. Thirty single-rooted premolars received endodontic treatment with gutta-percha and a calcium hydroxide-based endodontic cement. After 24 hours, the canal spaces were enlarged with burs. The tooth specimens were divided equally into three groups (n=10), according to the glass fiber post (GFP) system: AP-prefabricated GFP (Reforpost #2, Angelus) was relined with composite resin (Filtek Z350 XT, 3M ESPE); SPLENDOR SAP-GFP was used with a glass fiber sleeve to adjust the adaptation (Splendor SAP, Angelus); and CAD-CAM-a resin pattern was obtained and scanned to produce a CAD-CAM GFP (Fiber CAD Lab, Angelus) milled using a subtractive technique. The three GFP systems were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement (Rely X U200, 3M ESPE). The roots were fixed to an acrylic resin plate used to section them into specimens of cervical, middle, and apical thirds. Then, the slices were attached to a universal testing machine to perform the push- out test at a speed of 0.5 mm/min and a load of 50 Kgf. The posttest specimens were examined under a stereoscopic microscope to evaluate the failure mode. The bond strength variable was analyzed using a generalized linear model, following a split-plot design. Failure mode analysis was performed using Fisher exact test. The significance level adopted was 5%. There was no significant difference among the GFP systems or among the thirds, in terms of bond strength (p>0.05), nor was there any significant association between the systems and the failure mode (p>0.05). Most specimens presented mixed or adhesive failure between resin cement and dentin. It was concluded that the bond strength to flared root dentin was not influenced by the GFP system or the root third.

Push-Out Bond Strength Assessment of Different Post Systems at Different Radicular Levels of Endodontically Treated Teeth

This study assessed the bond strength of prefabricated post systems at different root levels of endodontically treated teeth. One-rooted human premolars (N = 70; n = 10) were cut to 2 mm above the cement-enamel junction. Root canals were treated and randomly assigned to one of the seven post systems: T: Titanium (Mooser), ZrO: Zirconia (Cosmopost), G: Fiber (FRC Postec Plus), E1: Fiber (Direct) (Everstick post), E2: Fiber (Indirect) (Everstick post), PP: Fiber (PinPost), and LP: Injectable Resin/Fiber composite (EverX Posterior). All posts were luted using a resin cement (Variolink II), and the roots were sectioned at the coronal, middle, and apical root levels. Push-out tests were performed in the Universal Testing Machine (0.5 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests (α = 0.05). The results showed that the bond strength (mean ± SD) of E2 posts were highest (5.3 ± 2.7) followed by PP (4.1 ± 2.0); G (4.0 ± 1.6); LP (2.6 ± 1.9): T (2.2 ± 1.5) and ZrO (1.9 ± 1.0) posts systems. No significant differences were found in bond strength of all post systems. The bond strength in the coronal root level was the highest with 3.6 ± 2.2 MPa. The bond strength of FRC post systems was significantly higher than those of rigid posts of titanium or ZrO₂. Bond strength results were the highest in the coronal root level for all tested post systems but did not differ significantly from the other two root levels.

Comparing the bond strength of fiber post cementation in the root canal using pre- and co-curing procedures with the same self-etching bonding system

Background/purpose

Self-etching bonding systems are widely used in fiber post cementation. However, no clear guidelines are established for choosing pre- or co-curing procedures. We investigated the bond strength of fiber post cementation using pre-/co-curing methods in self-etching bonding systems and compared them with those of a self-adhesive system.

Materials and methods

Post spaces were prepared in 30 single-rooted premolars/canines, and the fiber posts were cemented in three ways (10 specimens per group): using a self-etching bonding system with either a pre-curing or simultaneous co-curing procedure (RelyX™ Ultimate; groups SE-pre and SE-co, respectively) and using a self-adhesive system (RelyX™ Unicem 2, group SA). Each specimen was embedded and sliced perpendicularly to the long axis into three 2.5-mm-thick sections. Microphotographs of the coronal and apical surfaces of each section were acquired, and push-out tests (1 mm/min) were performed. One-way analysis of variance was conducted on the data, followed by Tukey's honestly significant difference post hoc test.

Results

The bond strength in the whole root was not significantly different among the three groups. When independently evaluating each portion, group SE-co exhibited significantly lower coronal bond strength. The bond strength varied among root regions only in group SE-pre; the apical region had a significantly lower value.

Conclusion

No cementation method is superior in all portions. Regarding pre-curing methods, clinicians must caution the fit between the post and post space, which may be affected by the pre-polymerized bond layer. The co-curing method used in a larger coronal cement space contributes to the poor bond strength.