IADR Abstract Archives
Endodontic post retention using calcium aluminate, glass-ionomer, and resin cement
Objectives: To measure and compare post retention strength of different endodontic posts using different types of cements.
Methods: 60 extracted caries-free human mandibular canines were sectioned at their CEJ with low-speed diamond saw. Canals were enlarged with K-flex hand files (#15 to #40) and irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Specimens were randomly divided into 3 different cement groups (n=10) with two different endodontic posts (DT Light, Bisco; RelyX Fiber Post, 3M): Ketac Cem (3M, glass ionomer), Ceramir Crown & Bridge (Doxa, mix of calcium aluminate and glass ionomer), RelyX Unicem 2 (3M, self-adhesive resin). Canals were cleaned with NaOCl, rinsed, and dried with paper points to achieve moist surface. Cementation was done following manufacturer’s protocols. Specimens were stored in a plastic bag with wet paper towel (37°C, 10min) and then PBS solution (37°C, 3days). Then, the apical end of the root was sectioned leaving a 3.5mm thick root section. Using a custom fixture on a universal testing machine, exposed post was gripped with pneumatic clamps and tensile load was applied at cross-head speed 1mm/min. Peak failure load was recorded and divided by the surface area of post-canal interface. One-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc analyses were conducted.
Results: Results presented in Table 1 show no difference between Ketac Cem and Ceramir C&B, while RelyX Unicem showed significantly higher results. No significant difference was seen between the two types of posts. There were significant differences between groups for force (p<.01) and stress (p<.01).
Conclusions: Ceramir C&B and Ketac Cem provided similar post retention, but lower retention than Unicem 2. Based on indications for Ketac Cem, Ceramir C&B may have the ability to be used for post cementation. However, post cementation of fiber post with Ceramir C&B and Ketac Cem will show lower retentive stress than that of a post bonded with a self-adhesive resin cement.
Methods: 60 extracted caries-free human mandibular canines were sectioned at their CEJ with low-speed diamond saw. Canals were enlarged with K-flex hand files (#15 to #40) and irrigated with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Specimens were randomly divided into 3 different cement groups (n=10) with two different endodontic posts (DT Light, Bisco; RelyX Fiber Post, 3M): Ketac Cem (3M, glass ionomer), Ceramir Crown & Bridge (Doxa, mix of calcium aluminate and glass ionomer), RelyX Unicem 2 (3M, self-adhesive resin). Canals were cleaned with NaOCl, rinsed, and dried with paper points to achieve moist surface. Cementation was done following manufacturer’s protocols. Specimens were stored in a plastic bag with wet paper towel (37°C, 10min) and then PBS solution (37°C, 3days). Then, the apical end of the root was sectioned leaving a 3.5mm thick root section. Using a custom fixture on a universal testing machine, exposed post was gripped with pneumatic clamps and tensile load was applied at cross-head speed 1mm/min. Peak failure load was recorded and divided by the surface area of post-canal interface. One-way ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer post-hoc analyses were conducted.
Results: Results presented in Table 1 show no difference between Ketac Cem and Ceramir C&B, while RelyX Unicem showed significantly higher results. No significant difference was seen between the two types of posts. There were significant differences between groups for force (p<.01) and stress (p<.01).
Conclusions: Ceramir C&B and Ketac Cem provided similar post retention, but lower retention than Unicem 2. Based on indications for Ketac Cem, Ceramir C&B may have the ability to be used for post cementation. However, post cementation of fiber post with Ceramir C&B and Ketac Cem will show lower retentive stress than that of a post bonded with a self-adhesive resin cement.