Header

UZH-Logo

Maintenance Infos

Adhesion of bulk-fill resin composites as core and intraradicular post materials only versus the use of glass-fiber posts in different regions of root dentin


Franz, Martin; Özcan, Mutlu (2019). Adhesion of bulk-fill resin composites as core and intraradicular post materials only versus the use of glass-fiber posts in different regions of root dentin. Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology, 33(13):1410-1425.

Abstract

This study assessed adhesion of bulk-fill resin-composites as core and post materials only versus the use of fiber resin composite (FRC) posts. Human teeth (N = 84) were cut at the CEJ and endodontically treated and randomly divided into seven groups: TP: Titanium post (Flat Head T); SFRC: S2-glass FRC (Pinpost); EFRC1: E-glass FRC (GC Everstick) directly bonded; GFRC: E-glass FRC (Glassix Nordin); EFRC2: E-glass FRC (Everstick); BF1: Bulk-fill resin (Surefill SDR); BF2: Bulk-fill resin (SonicFill). Groups TP, SFRC, EFRC and GFRC were cemented (Panavia 21), while other groups were bonded directly to the intraradicular dentin. The core parts were constructed using a resin composite (G-aenial) except for Groups BF1 and BF2. The core-cervical dentin interface was loaded under shear forces. Push-out tests were performed in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (α = 0.05). Not the root level (p > 0.05) but the type of core and post material significantly affected shear and push-out bond results (p < 0.001). BF1 (9.2 ± 2.1) and BF2 (9.3 ± 3.1) showed significantly lower bond strength to the cervical dentin (p < 0.05) compared to other groups (11.6 ± 2.5–19 ± 6.8). FRC post types did not show significant difference being higher than those of TP, BF1 and BF2 (0.57 ± 0.37–2.34 ± 1.98) (p > 0.05). Partial cohesive core fracture was more common while BF1 and BF2 showed exclusively adhesive failures. Cohesive failure in the cement was frequent in Group TP (53%) compared to other groups (3–24%). BF1 and BF2 presented exclusively complete adhesive failure of the bulk-fill material.

Abstract

This study assessed adhesion of bulk-fill resin-composites as core and post materials only versus the use of fiber resin composite (FRC) posts. Human teeth (N = 84) were cut at the CEJ and endodontically treated and randomly divided into seven groups: TP: Titanium post (Flat Head T); SFRC: S2-glass FRC (Pinpost); EFRC1: E-glass FRC (GC Everstick) directly bonded; GFRC: E-glass FRC (Glassix Nordin); EFRC2: E-glass FRC (Everstick); BF1: Bulk-fill resin (Surefill SDR); BF2: Bulk-fill resin (SonicFill). Groups TP, SFRC, EFRC and GFRC were cemented (Panavia 21), while other groups were bonded directly to the intraradicular dentin. The core parts were constructed using a resin composite (G-aenial) except for Groups BF1 and BF2. The core-cervical dentin interface was loaded under shear forces. Push-out tests were performed in a Universal Testing Machine (1 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey`s tests (α = 0.05). Not the root level (p > 0.05) but the type of core and post material significantly affected shear and push-out bond results (p < 0.001). BF1 (9.2 ± 2.1) and BF2 (9.3 ± 3.1) showed significantly lower bond strength to the cervical dentin (p < 0.05) compared to other groups (11.6 ± 2.5–19 ± 6.8). FRC post types did not show significant difference being higher than those of TP, BF1 and BF2 (0.57 ± 0.37–2.34 ± 1.98) (p > 0.05). Partial cohesive core fracture was more common while BF1 and BF2 showed exclusively adhesive failures. Cohesive failure in the cement was frequent in Group TP (53%) compared to other groups (3–24%). BF1 and BF2 presented exclusively complete adhesive failure of the bulk-fill material.

Statistics

Citations

Altmetrics

Downloads

3 downloads since deposited on 29 Nov 2019
3 downloads since 12 months
Detailed statistics

Additional indexing

Item Type:Journal Article, refereed, original work
Communities & Collections:04 Faculty of Medicine > Center for Dental Medicine > Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry
Dewey Decimal Classification:610 Medicine & health
Uncontrolled Keywords:Materials Chemistry, Mechanics of Materials, General Chemistry, Surfaces, Coatings and Films, Surfaces and Interfaces
Language:English
Date:23 April 2019
Deposited On:29 Nov 2019 13:14
Last Modified:29 Nov 2019 13:14
Publisher:Taylor & Francis
ISSN:0169-4243
OA Status:Closed
Publisher DOI:https://doi.org/10.1080/01694243.2019.1599206

Download

Closed Access: Download allowed only for UZH members