» Articles » PMID: 35897567

Push-Out Bond Strength Assessment of Different Post Systems at Different Radicular Levels of Endodontically Treated Teeth

Overview
Publisher MDPI
Date 2022 Jul 28
PMID 35897567
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This study assessed the bond strength of prefabricated post systems at different root levels of endodontically treated teeth. One-rooted human premolars (N = 70; n = 10) were cut to 2 mm above the cement-enamel junction. Root canals were treated and randomly assigned to one of the seven post systems: T: Titanium (Mooser), ZrO: Zirconia (Cosmopost), G: Fiber (FRC Postec Plus), E1: Fiber (Direct) (Everstick post), E2: Fiber (Indirect) (Everstick post), PP: Fiber (PinPost), and LP: Injectable Resin/Fiber composite (EverX Posterior). All posts were luted using a resin cement (Variolink II), and the roots were sectioned at the coronal, middle, and apical root levels. Push-out tests were performed in the Universal Testing Machine (0.5 mm/min). Data (MPa) were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α = 0.05). The results showed that the bond strength (mean ± SD) of E2 posts were highest (5.3 ± 2.7) followed by PP (4.1 ± 2.0); G (4.0 ± 1.6); LP (2.6 ± 1.9): T (2.2 ± 1.5) and ZrO (1.9 ± 1.0) posts systems. No significant differences were found in bond strength of all post systems. The bond strength in the coronal root level was the highest with 3.6 ± 2.2 MPa. The bond strength of FRC post systems was significantly higher than those of rigid posts of titanium or ZrO. Bond strength results were the highest in the coronal root level for all tested post systems but did not differ significantly from the other two root levels.

Citing Articles

Suitability of Direct Resin Composites in Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth (ETT).

Heyder M, Kranz S, Wehle B, Schulze-Spate U, Beck J, Hennig C Materials (Basel). 2024; 17(15).

PMID: 39124371 PMC: 11313470. DOI: 10.3390/ma17153707.


Adhesion of individually formed fiber post adhesively luted with flowable short fiber composite.

Suni A, Lassila L, Tuokko J, Garoushi S, Vallittu P Biomater Investig Dent. 2023; 10(1):2209593.

PMID: 37187569 PMC: 10177680. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2023.2209593.

References
1.
Silva N, Rodrigues M, Bicalho A, Soares P, Price R, Soares C . Effect of Resin Cement Mixing and Insertion Method into the Root Canal on Cement Porosity and Fiberglass Post Bond Strength. J Adhes Dent. 2019; 21(1):37-46. DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a41871. View

2.
Cagidiaco M, Radovic I, Simonetti M, Tay F, Ferrari M . Clinical performance of fiber post restorations in endodontically treated teeth: 2-year results. Int J Prosthodont. 2007; 20(3):293-8. View

3.
Bouillaguet S, Schutt A, Alander P, Schwaller P, Buerki G, Michler J . Hydrothermal and mechanical stresses degrade fiber-matrix interfacial bond strength in dental fiber-reinforced composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater. 2005; 76(1):98-105. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30349. View

4.
Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A . Biomechanical considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a systematic review of the literature, Part II (Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo studies). Quintessence Int. 2008; 39(2):117-29. View

5.
Skupien J, Sarkis-Onofre R, Cenci M, de Moraes R, Pereira-Cenci T . A systematic review of factors associated with the retention of glass fiber posts. Braz Oral Res. 2015; 29. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0074. View