Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 470
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2013  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 444-448
Evaluation of push-out bond strength of two fiber-reinforced composite posts systems using two luting cements in vitro


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Tatyasaheb Kore Dental College and Research Center, New Pargaon, Kolhapur, India
2 Maratha Mandals NG Halgekar Instutite of Dental Sciences and Research Center, Belgaum, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission15-May-2013
Date of Decision14-Jul-2013
Date of Acceptance23-Jul-2013
Date of Web Publication3-Sep-2013
 

   Abstract 

Introduction: The concept of using a "post" for the restoration of teeth has been practiced to restore the endodontically treated tooth. Metallic posts have been commonly used, but their delirious effects have led to the development of fiber-reinforced materials that have overcome the limitations of metallic posts. The use of glass and quartz fibers was proposed as an alternative to the dark color of carbon fiber posts as far as esthetics was concerned. "Debonding" is the most common failure in fiber-reinforced composite type of posts. This study was aimed to compare the push-out bond strength of a self-adhesive dual-cured luting agent (RelyX U100) with a total etch resin luting agent (Variolink II) used to cement two different FRC posts.
Materials and Methods: Eighty human maxillary anterior single-rooted teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, post space prepared and divided into four groups (n = 20); Group I: D.T. light post (RTD) and Variolink II (Ivoclare vivadent), Group II: D.T. light post (RTD) and RelyX U100 (3M ESPE), Group III: Glassix post (Nordin) and Variolink II (Ivoclare vivadent) and Group IV: Glassix post (Nordin) and RelyX U100 (3M ESPE). Each root was sectioned to get slices of 2 ± 0.05-mm thickness. Push-out tests were performed using a triaxial loading frame. To express bond strength in megapascals (Mpa), load value recorded in Newton (N) was divided by the area of the bonded interface. After testing the push-out strengths, the samples were analyzed under a stereomicroscope.
Results: The mean values of the push-out bond strength show that Group I and Group III had significantly higher values than Group II and Group IV. The most common mode of failure observed was adhesive between dentin and luting material and between post and luting material.
Conclusions: The mean push-out bond strengths were higher for Groups I and III where Variolink II resin cement was used for luting the fiber post, which is based on the total etch adhesive approach. In most of the samples, failure was observed between cement-dentine interface, followed by post-cement interface, which shows difficulty in bonding between post-cement-dentine interface.

Keywords: Fiber-reinforced composite post; push-out bond strength; resin cements

How to cite this article:
Kadam A, Pujar M, Patil C. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of two fiber-reinforced composite posts systems using two luting cements in vitro. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:444-8

How to cite this URL:
Kadam A, Pujar M, Patil C. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of two fiber-reinforced composite posts systems using two luting cements in vitro. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2013 [cited 2019 Oct 23];16:444-8. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2013/16/5/444/117522

   Introduction Top


For many years, posts have been used for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth. [1] Different materials have been used for the fabrication of posts. The progress made in the technology of fiber-reinforced materials has overcome some of the limitations of metallic posts; their advantage is more flexibility and same modulus of elasticity as dentin. [2]

When bonded in place with resin cement, it was thought that the forces would be distributed more evenly in the root, resulting in fewer root fractures. [3]
"Debonding" is the most common failure in fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) type of posts. The bonding capacity of FRC post systems is influenced by various factors. [4] Controlling these factors is essential in achieving a good bond between post-cement-dentine interface either by variation in the technique or by use of different materials for bonding of the post in the root canal. [5]

Adhesive resin cements have been used for the luting of these types of posts inside the root canal. A multiple-step technique is rather time consuming and technique-sensitive; self-adhesive resin cements that do not require any pre-treatment in such a context have gained popularity. [6] Adhesion to the tooth tissue is due to a chemical reaction between phosphate methacrylates and hydroxy-apatite. [7],[8]

The objective of this study was to compare the push-out bond strength between two fiber posts and two luting cements and also to evaluate the mode of failure between the fiber post, luting agent and root dentin.


   Materials and Methods Top


Eighty human maxillary anterior single-rooted teeth (previously extracted for periodontal reasons) with fully developed apices, straight roots without cracks, caries and fractures were selected.

Teeth were cleansed using ultrasonics and disinfected by immersion in 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution for 2 h and stored in normal saline.

All the teeth were decoronated 1.5-2.0 mm coronal to the cemento-enamel junction with a straight fissure bur. The pulp tissue was extirpated and canal patency was assessed with a size 10 K-file. Working length was established 1 mm short of the apical foramen and canals were enlarged up to size 40 K-file following the step-back technique with an intermediate irrigation using 1 mL of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. After final irrigation with normal saline, the canals were completely dried and obturated using AH plus sealer and gutta-percha by cold lateral compaction. The samples were stored in dampened gauze with normal saline for 1 week at 37°C.

Post space preparation was done by drills provided by the respective manufacturer of the post after removal of gutta-percha from the middle thirds of the canal, keeping 4-5 mm of the apical gutta-percha intact. Canals were irrigated with saline and radiographs were taken to check for any residual gutta-percha.

The roots were randomly assigned into four groups (n = 20):
Group I: D.T. light post (RTD) and Variolink II (Ivoclare vivadent)
Group II: D.T. light post (RTD) and RelyX U100 (3M ESPE)
Group III: Glassix post (Nordin) and Variolink II (Ivoclare vivadent)
Group IV: Glassix post (Nordin) and RelyX U100 (3M ESPE).

In groups where Variolink II was used as the luting agent, the walls of the post space were etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s and rinsed and dried. Scotch Bond (3M ESPE) was applied to the post space walls for 10 s with microbrush and excess was removed with paper points. Roots were polymerized using a halogen light unit for 20 s with the tip directed toward the post space opening. Equal amounts of base and catalyst were mixed and applied on the surface of the posts and the orifice of the root canals. The posts were then inserted into canals to a full depth using gentle finger pressure and excess was immediately removed with an explorer. The samples were subjected to light curing for 60 s, with the tip of the light unit in direct contact with the coronal end of the posts.

In groups where RelyX U100 was used as a luting agent, the dual-curing, self-adhesive resin luting agent was prepared according to the manufacturer's instructions [Table 3]. Cementation and polymerization was performed as mentioned previously. All samples were placed in distilled water at room temperature.

Push-out tests

The coronal portion of each root was sectioned perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth with a diamond disk to get 2 ± 0.05-mm-thick slices. The thickness of each slice and the radius of the canals were measured using a Vernier caliper. Push-out tests were performed with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min using a triaxial loading frame with the push-out jig being attached to a testing machine. Care was taken to center the push-out pin (diameter 1.0 mm) on the post surface without causing stress on the post space walls. Load was then applied to the apical side of the root slice to avoid resistance to movement of the post due to post space taper. The peak force that caused extrusion of the post segment from the slice was taken as the point of bond failure and the value was recorded in Newton (N). To express bond strength in megapascals (Mpa), the load value recorded in Newton was divided by the area of the bonded interface.

This was calculated as follows:

A = 2πrh

Where, "π" is constant (3.14), "r" is the post radius and "h" is the thickness of the slice.


   Results Top


The mean push-out bond strengths [Table 1] were higher for Group I and Group III where Variolink II resin cement was used for luting the fiber post. In most of the samples, failure was observed between the cement-dentine interface, followed by the post-cement interface, which shows difficulty in bonding between post-cement-dentine interface.
Table 1: Comparison of push-out bond strengths between the groups

Click here to view


Statistical analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 16.0, which showed significant differences among the groups (P < 0.05) according to analysis of variance (ANOVA one-way). Scheffe multiple comparison showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) between Groups I and II, Groups I and IV, Groups II and III and Groups III and IV. No significant difference was found between Groups I and III and Groups II and IV.

After testing the push-out strengths, the samples were analyzed using a stereomicroscope at the original magnification (40X) to determine the type of failure as follows: [Table 2]
Table 2: Mode of failure between the different groups

Click here to view
Table 3: Materials information

Click here to view


Type A: Adhesive failure between post and luting material
Type B: Adhesive failure between dentin and luting material
Type C: Cohesive failure of post system
Type D: Cohesive failure of luting material
Type E: Mixed type; combination of any two of the above-mentioned types.

76.25% of the samples showed adhesive failures while 18.75% were mixed failure and only 5% samples showed cohesive failures. In adhesive failure, 47.5% were seen between dentin and luting material, while 28.75% adhesive failures were between post and luting material. Cohesive failure was seen only for the post system.


   Discussion Top


FRC posts, as an alternative to cast post & core and prefabricated metal posts, were introduced in the early 1990s to restore endodontically treated teeth with an excessive loss of tooth structure. Several in vitro studies have shown that FRC posts distributed occlusal stresses more evenly in the root dentin, thereby resulting in fewer and more favorable root fractures, which were often reparable. [9],[10]

Bonding of FRC post systems may be influenced by various factors like the degree of hydration of root canal dentin, surface conditioning agent and luting cement used, cavity configuration factor, use of eugenol-containing sealers and the anatomic differences in density and orientation of the dentinal tubules at different levels of the root canal area. [4],[5]

Adhesive resin cement was used to cement the posts as they have the ability to bond to both the radicular dentin and the post, allowing the use of conservative post insertion techniques as well as reducing potential stress. [11],[12]

The behavior of luting cements is influenced by factors such as the adhesive approach and the type of initiation. [13] Both the resin cements used were dual cure, in which initiation is dependent on light source that is used in conjunction of light-transmitting fiber posts, which did not affect the bond strength as when metal posts were used. [14] A significant difference was seen between the two resin cements used, which may be related to the fact that thick smear layers and other debris retained on the root canal walls [15] might prevent optimal adhesive infiltration and that self-etching primers might not be able to etch through thick smear layers. [16]

The groups in which Variolink II was used as a luting agent showed the highest mean push-out bond strength compared with that of the groups luted with RelyX U100, which were similar to study conducted by Kececi et al. [5] The reason for the lower push-out bond strength in RelyX U100 cement might be the fact that methacrylated phosphoric esters responsible for substrate conditioning are not as effective as phosphoric acid used with Variolink II to dissolve the thick smear layer created on the root canal walls during the post space preparation. [17]

The push-out test is a more reliable method for determining bond strengths between fiber posts and post space dentine because of the high number of premature failures occurring during specimen preparation and large data distribution spread associated with microtensile testing. [17] Push-out tests result in a shear stress at the interface between dentine and cement as well as between post and cement, and are comparable with the stress under clinical conditions. [18]

Different authors have recommended different thickness of dentin disk for the push-out test. [19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24] The use of thicker discs seems to increase the area of friction and may lead to an overestimation of the bond strength. [25] In the present study, the disk thickness was 2 ± 0.5 mm, which was acceptable for testing. Furthermore, if the force is not completely centralized, friction with part of the dentin wall can be increased [26] ; for this reason, the pin diameter of the push-out jig was 1 mm, which was smaller than the diameter of the post (1.5 mm).

The analysis of failure modes in this study revealed that most of the failures occurred at the interface between dentin and luting agent, which was similar to previous studies. [2],[4] Adhesion between resin cements and root dentin is difficult because of polymerization stress occurring at the cement-dentin interface, [27] which may be affected by root canal geometry, responsible for its high configuration factor (C-Factor), i.e., a high force of resin cement contraction opposite to the cavity walls competing with the bond strength of the adhesive area. [28] Also, the use of sodium hypochlorite as an irrigant may interfere with the bond strength to dentin. [29]

The second most observed failure modes were adhesive at the cement and post interfaces. This may have resulted from the absence of a chemical union between epoxy resin-based post and methacrylate-based resins, and led to the proposed use of silane to improve the bonding mechanism. [30] In this study, there was no pretreatment on the post surface, and this may have resulted in this type of failure mode. [31] Cohesive failure was observed only of the post system in the group having Glassix post luted with RelyX U100 resin cement.

Both the FRC posts used in the study were translucent fiber posts that eliminated lack of light transmission, which affects the degree of polymerization of dual cure resin cements. [32]


   Conclusions Top


Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that:

  • The mean push-out bond strengths were higher for Groups I and III where Variolink II resin cement was used for luting the fiber post, which is based on the total etch adhesive approach. Therefore, pretreatment for removal of smear layer is recommended before the use of any kind of resin cement inside the root canal for luting of post
  • In most of the samples, failure was observed between the cement-dentine interface, followed by the post-cement interface, which shows difficulty in bonding between post-cement-dentine interface.


 
   References Top

1.Tjan AH, Whang S. Resistance to root fracture of post channels with various thicknesses of buccal dentin walls. J Prosth Dent 1985;53:496-500.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Ferrari M, Vichi A, Grandini S, Goracci C. Efficacy of a self-curing adesive-resin cement system on luting glass-fiber posts into root canals: An SEM investigation. Int J Prosthodont 2001;14:543-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post Placement and Restoration of Endodontically Treated Teeth: A Literature Review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Mumcu E, Erdemir U, Topcu FT. Comparison of micro push-out bond strengths of two fiber posts luted using simplified adhesive approaches. Dent Mater J 2010;29:286-96.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.Kececi AD, Ureyen Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro push-out bond strengths of four fiber reinforced composite post systems and two luting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:121-8.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements- chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil 2011;38:295-314.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.Gerth HU, Dammaschke T, Zuchner H, Schafer E. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites: A comparative study. Dent Mater 2006;22:934-41.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Al-Assaf K, Chakmakchi M, Palaghias G, Karanika-Kouma A, Eliades G. Interfacial characteristics of adhesive luting resins and composites with dentine. Dent Mater 2007;23:829-39.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: A review. Br Dent J 2003;195:43-8.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]    
10.Fokkinga WA, Kreulen CM, Vallittu PK, Creugers NH. A structured analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure modes of fiber, metal and ceramic post-and-core systems. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:476-82.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.AL-Wahadni AM, Hamdan S, Al-Omiri M, Hammad MM, Hatamleh MM. Fracture resistance of teeth restored with different post systems: In vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;106:e77-83.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.Eshelman EG Jr, Sayegh FS. Post materials and root fracture. J Prosthet Dent 1983;50:342-4.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Yoldas O, Alacam T. Microhardness of composites in simulated root canals cured with light transmitting posts and glass-fiber reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2005;31:104-6.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Reza F, Lim SP. Effects of curing mode of resin cements on the bond strength of a titanium post: An intraradicular study. J Conserv Dent 2012;15:123-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
15.Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: A scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:381-7.  Back to cited text no. 15
[PUBMED]    
16.Carvalho RM, Pegoraro TA, Tay FR, Pegoraro LF, Silva NR, Pashley DH. Adhesive permeability affects coupling of resin cements that utilize self-etching primers to dentine. J Dent 2004;32:55-65.  Back to cited text no. 16
[PUBMED]    
17.Goracci C, Tavares AU, Fabianelli A, Monticelli F, Raffaelli O, Cardoso PC, et al. The adhesion between fiber posts and root canal walls: Comparison between microtensile and push-out bond strength measurements. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:353-61.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]    
18.Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-35.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Bell AM, Lassila LV, Kangasniemi I, Vallittu PK. Bonding of fibre-reinforced composite post to root canal dentin. J Dent 2005;33:533-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]    
20.Wakefield C, Draughn R, Sneed W, Davis TN. Shear bond strengths of six bonding systems using the push-out method of in vitro testing. Oper Dent 1998;23:69-76.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.Kurtz JS, Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Hodges JS, Bowles WR. Bond strengths of toothcolored posts, effect of sealer, dentin adhesive, and root region. Am J Dent 2003;16:31A-6.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.Cheylan J, Gonthier S, Degrange M. In vitro push-out strength of seven luting agents to dentin. Int J Prosthodont 2002;15:365-70.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Muniz L, Mathias P. The influence of sodium hypochlorite and root canal sealers on post retention in different dentin regions. Oper Dent 2005;30:533-9.  Back to cited text no. 23
[PUBMED]    
24.Bolhuis P, De Gee A, Feilzer A. The influence of fatigue loading on the quality of the cement layer and retention strength of carbon fiber post resin composite core restorations. Oper Dent 2005;30:220-7.  Back to cited text no. 24
[PUBMED]    
25.D'Arcanjelo C, D'Amario M, De Angelis F, Zazzeroni S, Vadini M, Caputi S. Effect of Application Technique of Luting Agent on the Retention of Three Types of Fiber reinforced Post Systems. J Endod 2007;33:1378-82.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.Patierno JM, Rueggeberg FA, Anderson RW, Weller RN, Pashley DH. Push-out strength and SEM evaluation of resin composite bonded to internal cervical dentin. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:227-36.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]    
27.Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentine. Dent Mater 2003;19:199-205.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]    
28.Boff LL, Grossi ML, Prates LH, Burnett LH Jr, Shinkai RS. Effect of activation mode of post adhesive cementation on push out bond strength to root canal dentin. Quintessence Int 2007;38:387-94.  Back to cited text no. 28
[PUBMED]    
29.Morris MD, Lee KW, Agee KA, Bouillaguet S, Pashley DH. Effects of Sodium Hypochlorite and RC-Prep on Bond Strengths of Resin Cement to Endodontic Surfaces. J Endod 2001;27:753-7.  Back to cited text no. 29
[PUBMED]    
30.Sumitha M, Kothandaraman R, Sekar M. Evaluation of post-surface conditioning to improve interfacial adhesion in post-core restorations. J Conserv Dent 2011;14:28-31.  Back to cited text no. 30
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
31.Erdemir U, Mumcu E, Topcu FT, Yildiz E, Yamanel K, Akyol M. Micro push-out bond strengths of 2 fiber post types luted using different adhesive strategies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:534-44.  Back to cited text no. 31
[PUBMED]    
32.Taneja S, Kumari M, Gupta A. Evaluation of light transmission through different esthetic posts and its influence on the degree of polymerization of a dual cure resin cement. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:32-5.  Back to cited text no. 32
  Medknow Journal  

Top
Correspondence Address:
Ajay Kadam
Plot No. 21, Rankala Parisar Colony, Sutar Mal, Phulewadi, Kolhapur - 416 010
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.117522

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]

This article has been cited by
1 An update on glass fiber dental restorative composites: A systematic review
Abdul Samad Khan,Maria Tahir Azam,Maria Khan,Salman Aziz Mian,Ihtesham Ur Rehman
Materials Science and Engineering: C. 2015; 47: 26
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusions
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2881    
    Printed65    
    Emailed1    
    PDF Downloaded229    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 1    

Recommend this journal