Effect of Fiber Post-Resin Matrix Composition on Bond Strength of Post-Cement Interface

Alnaqbi, Ibtisam O. M.; Elbishari, Haitham; Elsubeihi, Emad S.

doi:10.1155/2018/4751627

Cited by 16 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates that stronger adhesion has occurred between Parapost FiberLux posts with both types of luting cement used, as compared to GC everStick ® POST. In agreement with this result, a previous study by Alnaqbi et al ( 33 ) has also found that the everStick ® POST recorded a lower bond strength than RelyX Fiber post. Another previous study has also obtained a similar result where RelyX Fiber post has a higher bond strength when cemented with RelyX TM Unicem than that recorded of GC everStick ® POST when cemented with similar types of luting cements ( 34 ).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Another previous study has also obtained a similar result where RelyX Fiber post has a higher bond strength when cemented with RelyX TM Unicem than that recorded of GC everStick ® POST when cemented with similar types of luting cements ( 34 ). There are several mechanisms that contribute to the adhesion between the fiber posts and resin cements, and these include micromechanical interlocking, chemical bonding and inter-diffusion ( 33 ). The high elasticity properties of fiber-reinforced posts make the strain generated to be greatly reduced ( 35 ) and also provides the post with similar physical properties as natural dentin ( 10 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This partially linear phase of everStick ® POST is what makes it possible for the inter-diffusion bonding process to occur since this inter-diffusion will only happen if the polymer substrate is either a totally or partially linear polymer ( 38 ). The types of cement used in our study had solubility parameters close to PMMA, thus providing an advantage for deeper penetration into the semi-IPN polymer structure of everStick ® POST and contributing to great resistance to fractural strength ( 33 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Push-out Bond Strength of Two Types of Dental Post Luted with Two Types of Cement at Two Different Root Levels

Alhajj¹,

Salim²,

Johari³

et al. 2020

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Endodontically treated teeth may require posts for retaining the core and replacing the coronal structures that have been lost. The objective of this study was to evaluate and compare the push-out bond strength between different types of post cemented with different types of luting cement at different types of root level. Materials and Methods In this in-vitro study, a total of 48 single-rooted permanent human teeth were decoronated, and the roots were treated endodontically. Following post space preparation, the sample was divided into four groups (n= 12 each) based on the types of post and cement. Two different types of post [GC everStick ® POST (ES) and Parapost ® Fiber Lux TM (PF)], and two different types of cement [G-CEM TM (G), and RelyX TM Unicem (R)] were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All roots were sectioned at the coronal and middle thirds with a thickness of 3±0.1mm. The Push-out bond strength (PBS) test was performed using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/ min. The bond strength values were recorded, and the data were analyzed using the SPSS program. Apart from descriptive statistics, three-way ANOVA was used for the interaction of the independent variables (post, cement, and root level). For differences between the groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses. Results Push-out bond strength of samples at the middle level (11.38±10.31 MPa), with PF posts (11.18±9.98 MPa), and of those luted with RelyX TM Unicem cement (13.26±8.73 MPa) was higher than that of their counterparts. The PBS means of RelyX TM Unicem cement at both root levels were much higher than PBS means of G-CEM TM cement. Three-way ANOVA test revealed a significant effect for each variable with a higher effect of cement (Sum of Squares= 1310.690; P< 0.001). No significant difference (P= 0.153) was found between the coronal and middle parts and between ES and PF posts (P= 0.058). However, a highly significant difference (P< 0.001) was found between RelyX TM Unicem and G-CEM TM cements. Conclusion The type of cement had a significant effect on push-out bond strength with RelyX TM Unicem which had higher values than G-CEM TM . However, the type of post and root level had no significant effect on PBS, although Parapost® Fiber Lux TM and middle root level had higher values than their counterparts.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Push-out Bond Strength of Two Types of Dental Post Luted with Two Types of Cement at Two Different Root Levels

Alhajj¹,

Salim²,

Johari³

et al. 2020

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the present study, several compositions of experimentally laboratory-mixed urethane-dimethacrylate (UDMA, 90%)-methyl-methacrylate (MMA, 10%) monomer-based resin were prepared. Presently, several kinds of monomers are applied in dental practice, for example, Bis-GMA, TEGDMA and UDMA [ 21 , 22 ]. Of these, an UDMA-MMA based monomer system was used.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Interpenetrating Polymer Network (IPN) Thermoplastic Resin on Flexural Strength of Fibre-Reinforced Composite and the Penetration of Bonding Resin into Semi-IPN FRC Post

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of interpenetrating polymer network (IPN) thermoplastic resin on the flexural strength of fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) with different IPN polymer compositions. The penetration of bonding resin into semi-IPN FRC posts was also evaluated. The IPN thermoplastic resin used was UDMA-MMA monomer with either PMMA (0.5%, 2%, 5%) or PMMA-copolymer (0.5%, 2%). A no added IPN polymer resin was also made. Mixed resin was impregnated to S- and E-glass fibre rovings. These resins and resin impregnated fibres were used for flexural strength (FS) test. To evaluate the penetration of bonding resin into semi-IPN post, SEM observation was done with various impregnation time and polymerization mehods (hand-light- and oven-cure). The result of FS was recorded from 111.7 MPa (no-IPN polymer/no-fibre-reinforcement) to 543.0 MPa (5% PMMA/S-glass FRC). ANOVA showed that there were significant differences between fibre-reinforcement and no-fibre-reinforcement (p < 0.01) both in S- and E-glass fibre groups, and between 0.5% PMMA and 5% PMMA in the S-glass FRC group. SEM micrographs showed that the penetration layers of bonding resin into hand-light cured semi-IPN posts were different according to impregnation time. Fibre reinforcement is effective to improve flexural strength. The depth of penetration layer of bonding resin into semi-IPN matrix resin was improved when a hand-light cure was used.

show abstract

“…Hence the longevity of the customized post depends on the adhesive ability. [15] The matrix present in GFP has epoxy resin [16] , owing to their highly cross linked structure, they cannot chemically bond with composite. [17] According to Valdiviya et al, surface treatment of GFP increased the bond strength of GFP to root dentine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Push-Out Bond Strength Between Different Surface Treated Glass Fiber Posts and Composite

Balagopal

James

Sebatni

et al. 2019

JBPR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate the effect of push-out bond strength between different surface treated glass fiber posts and resin composite. Materials and Methods: Four Cylindrical Glass fiber post (GFP) of 1.3mm diameter were divided into four groups depending on the surface treatment of glass GFP. Group I– no surface treatment done for GFP, group II - silane coupling agent was applied to GFP, then coated with bonding agent, group III – GFP was etched with 37% phosphoric acid, then treated with silane coupling agent and later coated with bonding agent and group IV - GFP was etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid then treated with silane coupling agent and later coated with bonding agent. The surface treated posts were vertically stabilized in the centre of a matrix. Composite was filled circumferentially and incrementally and photo cured. It was then sectioned perpendicular to the vertical axis yielding ten 1.0mm thick discs per fiber post. Ten specimens per group were obtained. They were subjected to push-out bond strength using universal testing machine. One - way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test were performed to verify statistical differences between groups (P< 0.01). Results: Superior bond strength was seen in 5% hydrofluoric acid etched group. Etching with 37% phosphoric acid or silane coupling agent alone did not show significant difference. GFP without surface treatment showed least bond strength. Conclusion: Glass fiber posts should be etched with 5% hydrofluoric acid and treated with silane coupling agent before applying bonding agent for a better bond strength between composite and the GFP. Keywords: Glass fiber post, push-out bond strength, custom made glass fiber post.

show abstract

Effect of Fiber Post-Resin Matrix Composition on Bond Strength of Post-Cement Interface

Cited by 16 publications

References 38 publications

Push-out Bond Strength of Two Types of Dental Post Luted with Two Types of Cement at Two Different Root Levels

Push-out Bond Strength of Two Types of Dental Post Luted with Two Types of Cement at Two Different Root Levels

Effect of Interpenetrating Polymer Network (IPN) Thermoplastic Resin on Flexural Strength of Fibre-Reinforced Composite and the Penetration of Bonding Resin into Semi-IPN FRC Post

Evaluation of Push-Out Bond Strength Between Different Surface Treated Glass Fiber Posts and Composite

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About