Effects of a relined fiberglass post with conventional and self-adhesive resin cement.

Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Pub Date : 2024-03-27 eCollection Date: 2024-05-01 DOI:10.5395/rde.2024.49.e18
Wilton Lima Dos Santos Junior, Marina Rodrigues Santi, Rodrigo Barros Esteves Lins, Luís Roberto Marcondes Martins
{"title":"Effects of a relined fiberglass post with conventional and self-adhesive resin cement.","authors":"Wilton Lima Dos Santos Junior, Marina Rodrigues Santi, Rodrigo Barros Esteves Lins, Luís Roberto Marcondes Martins","doi":"10.5395/rde.2024.49.e18","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of relined and non-relined fiberglass posts when cemented to root canal dentin using a conventional dual-cure resin cement or a self-adhesive resin cement.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Two types of resin cements were utilized: conventional and self-adhesive. Additionally, 2 cementation protocols were employed, involving relined and non-relined fiberglass posts. In total, 72 bovine incisors were cemented and subjected to push-out bond strength testing (<i>n</i> = 10) followed by failure mode analysis. The cross-sectional microhardness (<i>n</i> = 5) was assessed along the root canal, and interface analyses (<i>n</i> = 3) were conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data from the push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness tests were analyzed via 3-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni <i>post-hoc</i> test (α = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>For non-relined fiberglass posts, conventional resin cement exhibited higher push-out bond strength than self-adhesive cement. Relined fiberglass posts yielded comparable results between the resin cements. Type II failure was the most common failure mode for both resin cements, regardless of cementation protocol. The use of relined fiberglass posts improved the cross-sectional microhardness values for both cements. SEM images revealed voids and bubbles in the incisors with non-relined fiberglass posts.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Mechanical properties were impacted by the cementation protocol. Relined fiberglass posts presented the highest push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness values, regardless of the resin cement used (conventional dual-cure or self-adhesive). Conversely, for non-relined fiberglass posts, the conventional dual-cure resin cement yielded superior results to the self-adhesive resin cement.</p>","PeriodicalId":21102,"journal":{"name":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","volume":"49 2","pages":"e18"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11148402/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2024.49.e18","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/5/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of relined and non-relined fiberglass posts when cemented to root canal dentin using a conventional dual-cure resin cement or a self-adhesive resin cement.

Materials and methods: Two types of resin cements were utilized: conventional and self-adhesive. Additionally, 2 cementation protocols were employed, involving relined and non-relined fiberglass posts. In total, 72 bovine incisors were cemented and subjected to push-out bond strength testing (n = 10) followed by failure mode analysis. The cross-sectional microhardness (n = 5) was assessed along the root canal, and interface analyses (n = 3) were conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data from the push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness tests were analyzed via 3-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post-hoc test (α = 0.05).

Results: For non-relined fiberglass posts, conventional resin cement exhibited higher push-out bond strength than self-adhesive cement. Relined fiberglass posts yielded comparable results between the resin cements. Type II failure was the most common failure mode for both resin cements, regardless of cementation protocol. The use of relined fiberglass posts improved the cross-sectional microhardness values for both cements. SEM images revealed voids and bubbles in the incisors with non-relined fiberglass posts.

Conclusions: Mechanical properties were impacted by the cementation protocol. Relined fiberglass posts presented the highest push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness values, regardless of the resin cement used (conventional dual-cure or self-adhesive). Conversely, for non-relined fiberglass posts, the conventional dual-cure resin cement yielded superior results to the self-adhesive resin cement.

使用传统和自粘树脂水泥重新衬砌玻璃纤维柱的效果。
目的:本研究旨在评估使用传统双固化树脂粘固剂或自粘树脂粘固剂粘固根管牙本质时,有衬里和无衬里玻璃纤维桩的机械性能:本研究旨在评估使用传统的双固化树脂粘固剂或自粘性树脂粘固剂与根管牙本质粘固时,重新粘固和未重新粘固的玻璃纤维桩的机械性能:使用了两种树脂粘固剂:传统型和自粘性树脂粘固剂。此外,还采用了两种粘接方案,包括重新粘接和不重新粘接玻璃纤维桩。总共粘接了 72 颗牛门牙,并进行了推出粘接强度测试(n = 10)和失效模式分析。沿根管评估了横截面显微硬度(n = 5),并使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)进行了界面分析(n = 3)。通过 3 方差分析和 Bonferroni 事后检验(α = 0.05)对推出粘接强度和横截面显微硬度测试数据进行了分析:对于无衬里的玻璃纤维柱,传统树脂水泥的推出粘接强度高于自粘水泥。重新衬砌的玻璃纤维柱与树脂水泥的结果相当。无论采用哪种粘接方案,II 型失效是两种树脂粘接剂最常见的失效模式。使用重新衬砌的玻璃纤维柱改善了两种水门汀的横截面显微硬度值。扫描电子显微镜图像显示,未重新衬垫玻璃纤维柱的门牙中存在空隙和气泡:结论:机械性能受粘接方案的影响。无论使用哪种树脂粘结剂(传统的双固化或自粘性),有衬里的玻璃纤维柱都具有最高的推出粘结强度和横截面显微硬度值。相反,对于无衬里的玻璃纤维柱,传统双固化树脂胶合剂的效果优于自粘树脂胶合剂。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信