Bond Strength of Adhesive Cements to Root Canal Dentin Tested with a Novel Pull-out Approach

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Johannes Ebert ; DMD^&lowast ; ; ^{ebert@dent.uni-erlangen.de" class="auth_mail" title="E-mail the corresponding author} ; Andrea Leyer ; DMD^&lowast ; ; Oliver Gü ; nther^&lowast ; ; Ulrich Lohbauer ; PhD ; FADM^&lowast ; ; Anselm Petschelt ; DMD ; PhD^&lowast ; ; Roland Frankenberger ; DMD ; PhD ; FICD ; FADM^&dagger ; ; Matthias Johannes Roggendorf ; DMD^&dagger ;
• 关键词：Adhesive luting ; conventional cementation ; endodontic posts ; pull-out resistance ; Rocatec ; self-adhesive cements
• 刊名：Journal of Endodontics
• 出版年：2011
• 出版时间：November 2011
• 年：2011
• 卷：37
• 期：11
• 页码：1558-1561
• 全文大小：246 K

文摘

A novel approach to the pull-out test using silica-coated and silanized steel spreaders was designed to avoid influence from the post-cement interface. In this study, this test was applied to compare the post retention of adhesive versus conventional cements.

Methods

Canals of 90 single-rooted human teeth were prepared to size 60 taper .02; trimmed to an 8-mm root canal length; irrigated with 40% citric acid, 3% NaOCl, and 70% ethanol; and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10). Steel spreaders (size 55, taper .02) were silica coated and silanized with the Rocatec system (3M-Espe, Seefeld, Germany), except for a control group using GCem, and cemented with one of these adhesive luting materials (RelyX Unicem [3M-Espe], Clearfil SA Cement [Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan], Bifix SE [Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany], NX3 [Kerr, Orange, CA], GCem [GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan], or SmartCem2 [Dentsply De Trey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany]) or conventional cements (Hoffmann’s cement [Hoffmann Dental Manufaktur GmbH, Berlin, Germany] or Ketac Cem [3M-Espe]). After storage in distilled water (24 h/37°C), the spreaders were pulled out in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min.

Results

The failure mode was cohesive or adhesive at the cement-dentin interface in more than 80% of the experimental samples (control group: adhesive to the post: 9/10 samples). Adhesive luting materials retained posts better than conventional cements (t test, P < .001) but with a wide range in variation. RelyX Unicem displayed significantly higher values except when compared with Bifix SE and Clearfil SA (analysis of variance/Student-Newman-Keuls, P < .05). NX3, SmartCem2, and GCem showed no significant differences to Hoffmann’s cement and Ketac Cem.

Conclusions

The novel pull-out approach served well in testing the bond strength of different cements to root canal dentin. The bonding effectiveness of adhesive cements varied significantly and was material specific.