Bond Strength of Individually Formed and Prefabricated Fiber-reinforced Composite Posts.

Ivana Parčina Amižić, A. Baraba, A. Ionescu, E. Brambilla, A. Van Ende, I. Miletić
{"title":"Bond Strength of Individually Formed and Prefabricated Fiber-reinforced Composite Posts.","authors":"Ivana Parčina Amižić, A. Baraba, A. Ionescu, E. Brambilla, A. Van Ende, I. Miletić","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a43649","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE To investigate the micro push-out bond strength of individually formed (everStick Post) and prefabricated (GC Fiber Post) fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts cemented with three different types of self-adhesive composite cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-two single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, and had post spaces prepared for everStick Post (n = 21) or GC Fiber Post (n = 21). The teeth were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 7), and posts were cemented either with G-CEM LinkAce (GC), SpeedCEM (Ivoclar Vivadent) or RelyX U200 (3M Oral Care). Specimens were then perpendicularly sectioned and divided at the cementoenamel junction into two root levels: coronal or apical. A micro push-out test was performed using an 0.8-mm-wide stainless steel plunger. Bond strength was calculated in MPa by dividing the fracture load (N) by the bonded surface area (mm2). Log-transformed data was statistically analyzed using factorial ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α < 0.05). Fracture modes were determined employing a stereomicroscope, and differences were evaluated using a likelihood ratio test and Pearson's chi-squared test. Specimens were also observed using SEM. RESULTS Bond strengths were significantly affected by both post type and root level (p < 0.05), but not by self-adhesive cement (p > 0.05). Fracture types showed a significantly higher prevalence of adhesive fractures at the apical level, with all fractures starting at the cement-dentin interface. CONCLUSION Individually formed FRC posts demonstrated greater bond strength than their prefabricated FRC counterparts. The apical level of the luted posts yielded lower bond strengths than the coronal level. Failures were predominantly adhesive at the cement-dentin interface.","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":"46 1","pages":"557-565"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a43649","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

PURPOSE To investigate the micro push-out bond strength of individually formed (everStick Post) and prefabricated (GC Fiber Post) fiber-reinforced composite (FRC) posts cemented with three different types of self-adhesive composite cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty-two single-rooted human teeth were decoronated, endodontically treated, and had post spaces prepared for everStick Post (n = 21) or GC Fiber Post (n = 21). The teeth were randomly divided into three subgroups (n = 7), and posts were cemented either with G-CEM LinkAce (GC), SpeedCEM (Ivoclar Vivadent) or RelyX U200 (3M Oral Care). Specimens were then perpendicularly sectioned and divided at the cementoenamel junction into two root levels: coronal or apical. A micro push-out test was performed using an 0.8-mm-wide stainless steel plunger. Bond strength was calculated in MPa by dividing the fracture load (N) by the bonded surface area (mm2). Log-transformed data was statistically analyzed using factorial ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (α < 0.05). Fracture modes were determined employing a stereomicroscope, and differences were evaluated using a likelihood ratio test and Pearson's chi-squared test. Specimens were also observed using SEM. RESULTS Bond strengths were significantly affected by both post type and root level (p < 0.05), but not by self-adhesive cement (p > 0.05). Fracture types showed a significantly higher prevalence of adhesive fractures at the apical level, with all fractures starting at the cement-dentin interface. CONCLUSION Individually formed FRC posts demonstrated greater bond strength than their prefabricated FRC counterparts. The apical level of the luted posts yielded lower bond strengths than the coronal level. Failures were predominantly adhesive at the cement-dentin interface.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
单独成形和预制纤维增强复合桩的粘结强度。
目的研究三种不同类型的自粘复合水泥对单独成型(evertick Post)和预制(GC Fiber Post)纤维增强复合材料(FRC)桩的微推出粘结强度的影响。材料与方法对42颗单根人牙进行装饰、根管治疗,并为evertick桩(n = 21)或GC纤维桩(n = 21)准备桩位。将牙齿随机分为3个亚组(n = 7),分别用G-CEM LinkAce (GC)、SpeedCEM (Ivoclar Vivadent)或RelyX U200 (3M Oral Care)粘接。然后将标本垂直切片,在牙骨质与牙釉质交界处分成冠状和根尖两根。采用0.8 mm宽的不锈钢柱塞进行微推出试验。通过断裂载荷(N)除以粘结表面积(mm2)计算粘结强度,单位为MPa。对数变换后的数据采用因子方差分析和Tukey事后检验进行统计学分析(α < 0.05)。采用体视显微镜确定断裂模式,并使用似然比检验和皮尔逊卡方检验评估差异。并用扫描电镜对样品进行了观察。结果粘结强度受桩型和根水平的影响均显著(p < 0.05),而不受自粘水泥的影响(p > 0.05)。骨折类型显示粘连性骨折在根尖水平的发生率明显较高,所有骨折都始于骨水泥-牙本质界面。结论单独形成的FRC桩比预制的FRC桩具有更高的粘结强度。顶端水平的木桩产生较低的粘结强度比冠状水平。失效主要发生在骨水泥-牙本质界面。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Long-term Survival Rate and Clinical Quality of Individually Layered Indirect Composite Restorations in Adolescents and Young Adults. A Novel Graphite Fluoride/Bioactive Glass-containing Orthodontic Primer with Antibacterial and Remineralization Properties: An In-vitro Study. Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment? A Systematic Review. Morphological Analysis and Bond Strength to Root Canal Dentin of Endodontically Treated and Retreated Teeth: An Ex Vivo Study. Three-Dimensional Internal Voids and Marginal Adaptation in Deep Margin Elevation Technique: Efficiency of Highly Filled Flowable Composites.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1