IADR Abstract Archives

Bulk-fill Resin Like Adhesive Cementation of Glass Fiber Posts

Objectives: The objective of this study was to evaluate the adhesive bond strength of glass fiber post cemented with Bulk-fill flow resin in endodontically treated teeth, varying the type of cementation.
Methods: Twenty roots of bovine incisors were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups (n = 10). After the external coating of the roots with molding material, the samples were prepared with Resin cement and Bulk-fill resin flow. The root were sectioned, resulting in two 1.0-mm thick slices from the apical, middle and coronal root regions and submitted to the push-out bond strength test. Data were analyzed using 2way ANOVA and Tukey test. To determine failure mode, two calibrated operators used a stereomicroscope at 40× magnification, with a 2,5D analysis.
Results: Regarding the bond strength, there was not a statistically significant between cementation protocol and the root thirds evaluated (p = 0,536). However, there was a statistically significant difference (p = <0,001) between the cervical, middle and apical thirds since the push out bond strength results obtained, showed significantly higher values in the cervical third when compared to the others.
Conclusions: These results might be explained by the better intimacy between the glass-fiber post and root canal walls at this third. It could also be attributed to the limited light-transmitting ability of fiber posts with increased length of root canals. As for the pattern of failure, within the bulk-fill group, the most prevalent category was “mixed, with resin cement covering partially of the post surface” at the apical third. In the cement resin group, the most frequent category of failure pattern was “adhesive between resin cement and root dentin” at middle third. Regardless of the group evaluated, there was a higher incidence of adhesive failure between resin cement and root dentin and of mixed failures, suggesting that dentin might have influenced the adhesion.
Division: AADR/CADR Annual Meeting
Meeting: 2018 AADR/CADR Annual Meeting (Fort Lauderdale, Florida)
Location: Fort Lauderdale, Florida
Year: 2018
Final Presentation ID: 0985
Abstract Category|Abstract Category(s): Dental Materials 4: Adhesion
Authors
  • Martins, Victor  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Almeida, Lorena  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Silva, Camila  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Paula, Marcela  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Menezes, Murilo  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Soares, Carlos  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Santos-filho, Paulo César  ( Federal University of Uberlandia , Uberlandia, Minas Ge , Brazil )
  • Support Funding Agency/Grant Number: PIVICMG2017SAU039
    Financial Interest Disclosure: NONE
    SESSION INFORMATION
    Poster Session
    Dental Materials: Dentin/Enamel Bond Strengths with Recent Adhesive Materials
    Friday, 03/23/2018 , 11:00AM - 12:15PM
    TABLES
    Mean bond strength - MPa [Standard deviation]
     Bulk-fill flowAllcem
    Cervical third 5,50 [3,15]Aa5,27 [2,36]Aa
    Middle third1,86 [1,53]Ab2,73 [2,22]Ab
    Apical third1,35 [2,18]Ab2,87 [1,73]Ab
    * Means followed by the same uppercase letter in the lines and lowercase in columns do not differ by Two Way (p <0.05). The Tukey test was necessary cause do differ significantly between groups.
    Push-out test failure mode distribution (n=20, per root third) Bulk-fill resin
     Type 1Type 2Type 3Type 4Type 4
    Cervical2 (10%)11(55%)1 (5%)0 (0%)6 (30%)
    Middle5 (25%)5 (25%)2 (10%)0 (0%)8 (40%)
    Apical2 (10%)2 (10%)0 (0%)0 (0%)16 (80%)
    Failures were classified into 1 of 5 categories: (1) adhesive between post and resin cement; (2) between resin cement and root dentin; (3) cohesive within the fiber post; (4) cohesive within the dentin; and (5) mixed, with resin cement covering partially of the post surface.
    Push-out test failure mode distribution (n=20, per root third) Resin Cement
     Type 1Type 2Type 3Type 4Type 5
    Cervical3 (15%)10 (50%)3 (15%)0 (0%)4 (20%)
    Middle1 (5%)13 (65%)1 (5%)0 (0%)5 (25%)
    Apical0 (0%)11 (55%)0 (0%)0 (0%)9 (45%)
    Failures were classified into 1 of 5 categories: (1) adhesive between post and resin cement; (2) between resin cement and root dentin; (3) cohesive within the fiber post; (4) cohesive within the dentin; and (5) mixed, with resin cement covering partially of the post surface.