Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 3, pp 1403–1409 | Cite as

Effect of different endodontic sealers and time of cementation on push-out bond strength of fiber posts

  • Danielle Araújo Vilas-Boas
  • Renata Grazziotin-Soares
  • Diego Machado Ardenghi
  • José Bauer
  • Patrícia Oliveira de Souza
  • George Táccio de Miranda Candeiro
  • Etevaldo Matos Maia-Filho
  • Ceci Nunes Carvalho
Original Article
  • 317 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to evaluate the effect of different endodontic sealers (epoxy resin, eugenol, and bioceramic/calcium silicate-based) and the time of cementation (immediately or 7 days after canal obturation) on the bond strength of a fiberglass post cemented with RelyX™ ARC.

Material and methods

Eighty-four premolars were instrumented and divided into groups (n = 12) according to the sealer and the time of post cementation: Endofill (EN), Endosequence BC Sealer (BC), and AH Plus (AH) had immediately fiber post cementation; EN7, BC7, and AH7 had post cementation after 7 days; and control group (C) had fiber post cementation without endodontic sealer. Each post space of the root was cut into slices and submitted to push-out test. Failure mode was assessed. Two-way ANOVA, Tukey’s, and Dunnett’s tests were used for statistical analysis (α = 5%).

Results

The type of endodontic sealer (p < 0.001), the time of post cementation (p = 0.038), and the interaction sealer time (p = 0.002) had negative influence on bond strength of fiberglass posts cemented with RelyX™ ARC. AH promoted the highest bond strength mean values (21.20 MPa immediately and 15.54 MPa at 7 days). EN (9.75 MPa immediately and 13.15 MPa at 7 days) and BC (10.43 MPa immediately and 5.73 MPa at 7 days) had lower bond strength than AH, regardless the time of cementation.

Conclusions

AH was the best sealer to obturate the root canal when fiberglass cementation with resin-based cement is planned.

Clinical relevance

The correct choice of an endodontic sealer and the adequate time of post cementation may avoid post dislocation caused by low bond strength to dentin.

Keywords

Fiber post Push-out bond strength Sealer Resin cement Root 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

References

  1. 1.
    Pulido CA, de Oliveira Franco AP, Gomes GM, Bittencourt BF, Kalinowski HJ, Gomes JC, Gomes OM (2016) An in situ evaluation of the polymerization shrinkage, degree of conversion, and bond strength of resin cements used for luting fiber posts. J Prosthet Dent 116:570–576CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fujisawa S, Kadoma Y (1992) Effect of phenolic compounds on the polymerization of methyl methacrylate. Dent Mater 8:324–326CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schwartz RS, Murchison DF, Walker WA 3rd (1998) Effects of eugenol and noneugenol endodontic sealer cements on post retention. J Endod 24:564–567CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S et al (2012) Effect of different root canal obturating materials on push-out bond strength of a fiber dowel. J Prosthodont 21:389–392CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Altmann AS, Leitune VC, Collares FM (2015) Influence of eugenol-based sealers on push out bond strength of fiber post luted with resin cement: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 41:1418–1423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cecchin D, Farina AP, Souza MA, Carlini-Júnior B, Ferraz CC (2011) Effect of root canal sealers on bond strength of fibreglass posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cements. Int Endod J 44:314–320CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rosa RA, Barreto MS, Moraes Rdo A et al (2013) Influence of endodontic sealer composition and time of fiber post cementation on sealer adhesiveness to bovine root dentin. Braz Dent J 24:241–246CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shokouhinejad N, Gorjestani H, Nasseh AA, Hoseini A, Mohammadi M, Shamshiri AR (2013) Push-out bond strength of gutta-percha with a new bioceramic sealer in the presence or absence of smear layer. Aust Endod J 39:102–106CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carvalho CN, Martinelli JR, Bauer J, Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Bradaschia-Correa V, Manso AP, Gavini G (2015) Micropush-out dentine bond strength of a new gutta-percha and niobium phosphate glass composite. Int Endod J 48:451–459CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Forough Reyhani M, Ghasemi N, Rahimi S, Milani AS, Omrani E (2016) Effect of different endodontic sealers on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts. Iran Endod J 11:119–123PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Oliveira DS, Cardoso ML, Queiroz TF, Silva EJ, Souza EM, De-Deus G (2016) Suboptimal push-out bond strengths of calcium silicate-based sealers. Int Endod J 49:796–801CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    De-Deus G, Di Giorgi K, Fidel S, Fidel RA, Paciornik S (2009) Push-out bond strength of Resilon/Epiphany and Resilon/Epiphany self-etch to root dentin. J Endod 35:1048–1050CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Santos J, Tjäderhane L, Ferraz C, Zaia A, Alves M, De Goes M, Carrilho M (2010) Long-term sealing ability of resin-based root canal fillings. Int Endod J 43:455–460CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Loushine BA, Bryan TE, Looney SW et al (2011) Setting properties and cytotoxicity evaluation of a premixed bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 37:673–677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gettleman BH, Messer HH, ElDeeb ME (1991) Adhesion of sealer cements to dentin with and without the smear layer. J Endod 17:15–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Vano M, Cury AH, Goracci C et al (2006) The effect of immediate versus delayed cementation on the retention of different types of fiber post in canals obturated using a eugenol sealer. J Endod 32:882–885CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Aleisa K, Al-Dwairi ZN, Alsubait SA, Morgano SM (2016) Pull-out retentive strength of fiber posts cemented at different times in canals obturated with a eugenol-based sealer. J Prosthet Dent 116:85–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Vano M, Cury AH, Goracci C, Chieffi N, Gabriele M, Tay FR, Ferrari M (2008) Retention of fiber posts cemented at different time intervals in canals obturated using an epoxy resin sealer. J Dent 36:801–807CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schwartzer E, Collares FM, Ogliari FA et al (2007) Influence of zinc oxide-eugenol temporary cement on bond strength of an all-in-one adhesive system to bovine dentin. Braz J Oral Sci 6:6Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ribeiro JC, Coelho PG, Janal MN et al (2011) The influence of temporary cements on dental adhesive systems for luting cementation. J Dent 39:255–262CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, Kohli S (2013) Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, and MTA Plus in furcation perforation repair. J Conserv Dent 16:462–465CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nagas E, Cehreli ZC, Uyanik MO, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV (2016) Effect of several intracanal medicaments on the push-out bond strength of ProRoot MTA and Biodentine. Int Endod J 49:184–188CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Campos RE, Santos Filho PCF, de O Júnior OB, Ambrosano GMB, Pereira CA (2017) Comparative evaluation of 3 microbond strength tests using 4 adhesive systems: mechanical, finite element, and failure analysis. J Prosthet Dent.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2017.02.024
  24. 24.
    Chen WP, Chen YY, Huang SH, Lin CP (2013 Feb) Limitations of push-out test in bond strength measurement. J Endod 39(2):283–287CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    De-Deus G, Souza E, Versiani M (2015) Methodological considerations on push-out tests in endodontics. Int Endod J 48:501–503CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oltra E, Cox TC, LaCourse MR, Johnson JD, Paranjpe A (2017) Retreatability of two endodontic sealers, EndoSequence BC Sealer and AH Plus: a micro-computed tomographic comparison. Restor Dent Endod 42:19–26CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Han L, Okiji T (2013) Bioactivity evaluation of three calcium silicate-based endodontic materials. Int Endod J 46:808–814CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Danielle Araújo Vilas-Boas
    • 1
  • Renata Grazziotin-Soares
    • 2
  • Diego Machado Ardenghi
    • 3
  • José Bauer
    • 4
  • Patrícia Oliveira de Souza
    • 1
  • George Táccio de Miranda Candeiro
    • 5
  • Etevaldo Matos Maia-Filho
    • 1
  • Ceci Nunes Carvalho
    • 1
  1. 1.Dental School, CEUMA University (UNICEUMA)São LuísBrazil
  2. 2.Discipline of Endodontics, College of DentistryUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada
  3. 3.University of Saskatchewan, College of DentistrySaskatoonCanada
  4. 4.Discipline of Dental Materials, School of DentistryFederal University of Maranhão (UFMA)São LuísBrazil
  5. 5.Dental Sciences Post-graduation Program, School of DentistryUniversitary Center ChristusFortalezaBrazil

Personalised recommendations