Poly-Ether Ether-Ketone Post Conditioned with Sulfuric Acid, Rose Bengal Activated by Photodynamic Therapy and Sandblasting on Pushout Bond Strength to Radicular Dentin Luted with Methyl Methacrylate and Composite-Based Cement.
Thamer Almohareb, Khold Al Ahdal, Ahmed M Maawadh, Ahoud S Alshamrani, Aminah M El Mourad, Fatima Y Al-Bishry, Ali Alrahlah
{"title":"Poly-Ether Ether-Ketone Post Conditioned with Sulfuric Acid, Rose Bengal Activated by Photodynamic Therapy and Sandblasting on Pushout Bond Strength to Radicular Dentin Luted with Methyl Methacrylate and Composite-Based Cement.","authors":"Thamer Almohareb, Khold Al Ahdal, Ahmed M Maawadh, Ahoud S Alshamrani, Aminah M El Mourad, Fatima Y Al-Bishry, Ali Alrahlah","doi":"10.1089/photob.2023.0079","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b><i>Objective:</i></b> Assessment of post surface conditioners [sulfuric acid (SA), Rose Bengal (RB), and sandblasting (SB)] and different luting cements [methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based cement and composite-based cement] on pushout bond strength (PBS) of poly-ether ether-ketone (PEEK) post bonded to canal dentin. <b><i>Materials and methods:</i></b> Endodontic treatment was performed on 120 single-rooted human premolar teeth. The preparation of the post space was performed and 4 mm of gutta-percha was retained in the apical region of the root. One hundred and twenty PEEK posts were fabricated from a PEEK blank utilizing a Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) system. The PEEK posts were allocated randomly into four groups based on post surface conditioning (<i>n</i> = 30). Group A: SA, Group B: RB, Group C: SB, and Group D: No conditioning (NC). Each group was further divided into two subgroups based on the luting cement used for bonding (<i>n</i> = 15). Group A1, B1, C1, and D1 specimens were cemented using composite-based resin cement. However, Group A2, B2, C2, and D2 posts were luted with MMA-based resin cement. PBS assessment using a universal testing machine was performed. Failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. The data relating to the effects of surface treatment and luting types of cement were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test (<i>p</i> = 0.05). <b><i>Results:</i></b> Coronal section of Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B [9.61 ± 0.75 megapascals (MPa)] displayed the highest bond scores of PEEK after root dentin. Whereas it was also discovered that Group D1: NC+Panavia<sup>®</sup>V5 (2.05 ± 0.72 MPa) presented the lowest PBS scores. Intergroup comparison analysis revealed that Group A2: SA+Super-Bond C&B and Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B displayed no significant difference in their bond scores. <b><i>Conclusions:</i></b> RB and SA possess the potential to be used as a PEEK post conditioner. MMA-based cement displayed better performance than composite-based cement.</p>","PeriodicalId":94169,"journal":{"name":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photobiomodulation, photomedicine, and laser surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2023.0079","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"SURGERY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Objective: Assessment of post surface conditioners [sulfuric acid (SA), Rose Bengal (RB), and sandblasting (SB)] and different luting cements [methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based cement and composite-based cement] on pushout bond strength (PBS) of poly-ether ether-ketone (PEEK) post bonded to canal dentin. Materials and methods: Endodontic treatment was performed on 120 single-rooted human premolar teeth. The preparation of the post space was performed and 4 mm of gutta-percha was retained in the apical region of the root. One hundred and twenty PEEK posts were fabricated from a PEEK blank utilizing a Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) system. The PEEK posts were allocated randomly into four groups based on post surface conditioning (n = 30). Group A: SA, Group B: RB, Group C: SB, and Group D: No conditioning (NC). Each group was further divided into two subgroups based on the luting cement used for bonding (n = 15). Group A1, B1, C1, and D1 specimens were cemented using composite-based resin cement. However, Group A2, B2, C2, and D2 posts were luted with MMA-based resin cement. PBS assessment using a universal testing machine was performed. Failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. The data relating to the effects of surface treatment and luting types of cement were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test (p = 0.05). Results: Coronal section of Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B [9.61 ± 0.75 megapascals (MPa)] displayed the highest bond scores of PEEK after root dentin. Whereas it was also discovered that Group D1: NC+Panavia®V5 (2.05 ± 0.72 MPa) presented the lowest PBS scores. Intergroup comparison analysis revealed that Group A2: SA+Super-Bond C&B and Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B displayed no significant difference in their bond scores. Conclusions: RB and SA possess the potential to be used as a PEEK post conditioner. MMA-based cement displayed better performance than composite-based cement.