Evaluation of the impact of different irrigation agents and temperatures on the bond strength of resin cement used in bonding fiber posts to dentin

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of resin cement used in bonding fiber-reinforced composite pulp to canal dentin walls treated with various irrigation agents at different temperatures. Methods: Seventy-two extracted teeth (single-rooted lower first and second premolars) were used. The teeth were divided into six groups according to the final irrigation solutions applied to the post cavity (n = 12 in each group). The groups were as follows: QMix 2 in 1, 25ºC (group 1); QMix 2 in 1, 40°C (group 2); 2% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), 40°C (group 3); 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 25 °C (group 4); 17% EDTA, 40°C (group 5); and CHX, 25°C (group 6). The irrigation agents were applied for 60 seconds, and root canals were dried. Horizontal sections were obtained 24 hours after fiber post cementation. The bond strength between the fiber post and dentin wall was measured using a push-out tester and recorded. The difference between the two groups was determined by the independent Student’s t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey HSD post-hoc test for more than two groups (p<0.05). Results: The highest apical strength was observed in group 2 (42.240 ± 4.969) and the lowest in group 6 (2.160 ± 0.825). The highest coronal strength was observed in group 5 (55.435 ± 5.396) and the lowest in group 3 (5.139 ± 0.977) (p<0.05). There was a statistically significant difference between the coronal and apical regions in group 1 and group 6 (p<0.05). Conclusion: The best bonding strength in apical regions was obtained using QMix 2 in 1 (40ºC), and the best bonding strength in coronal regions was achieved using 17% EDTA (40ºC).   How to cite this article: Öztekin F, Tekin S. Evaluation of the impact of different irrigation agents and temperatures on the bond strength of resin cement used in bonding fiber posts to dentin. J Med Dent Invest 2022;3:e221150. https://doi.org/10.5577/jomdi.e221150   Linguistic revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.   Checked for plagiarism: Yes