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

• Published in: Journal of endodontics Vol. 37; no. 11; pp. 1558 - 1561
• Main Authors: Ebert, Johannes, DMD, Leyer, Andrea, DMD, Günther, Oliver, Lohbauer, Ulrich, PhD, FADM, Petschelt, Anselm, DMD, PhD, Frankenberger, Roland, DMD, PhD, FICD, FADM, Roggendorf, Matthias Johannes, DMD
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01-11-2011
• Subjects: Adhesive luting; conventional cementation; Dental Bonding; Dental Pulp Cavity; Dental Stress Analysis - instrumentation; Dentin; Dentin-Bonding Agents; Dentistry; Endocrinology & Metabolism; endodontic posts; Glass Ionomer Cements; Humans; Materials Testing; Post and Core Technique; pull-out resistance; Resin Cements; Rocatec; self-adhesive cements; Statistics, Nonparametric; Tensile Strength; endodontic posts; Adhesive luting; pull-out resistance; self-adhesive cements; Rocatec; conventional cementation
• ISSN: 0099-2399; 1878-3554
• DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.009

Abstract Introduction 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.