Resistance of core materials against torsional forces on differently conditioned titanium posts.
BACKGROUND
The separation of core materials from titanium posts, which have a low modulus of elasticity, has been identified as a problem in restorative dentistry.


OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the resistance to torsional forces of various core materials adapted to differently conditioned titanium posts.


METHODS
Seven hundred and twenty specimens were tested consisting of: 6 core materials and 5 surface conditioning techniques for 2 kinds of opaquers with 10 specimens in each group (6 x 5 x 2 x 10=600) plus 6 core materials and 2 opaquers were tested and considered as control groups on nonconditioned titanium posts, each group containing 10 specimens (6 x 2 x 10=120). The custom-made pure titanium posts were conditioned with the following products: Silicoater Classical, Silicoater MD, Rocatec, Kevloc, and Siloc surface-conditioning systems. Subsequently, 6 core materials with different compositions (Durafill, Adaptic, Coradent, Ti-Core, Hytac Aplitip, and Photac-Fil Aplitip) were applied to titanium posts that were previously coated with 2 types of light-polymerized opaquers, either Artglass or Dentacolor. Sixty air-abraded titanium posts (250 microm, 30 seconds) were used as controls for each core material. Following thermocycling (5 degrees -55 degrees C, 30 seconds, 5,000 cycles), maximum torsional forces were determined with an electronic torque movement key. Data were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance followed by 2-way analysis of variance (P<.05).


RESULTS
Significantly higher mean torsional forces were observed with respect to Siloc (20.4 Newton decimeter [dNm]), Silicoater Classical (18.6 dNm), Silicoater MD (18.2 dNm), and Rocatec (17.0 dNm) systems compared with the mean for the untreated control group (14.6 dNm) (P<.001). The Kevloc system (10.4 dNm) demonstrated no significant difference compared with the control group (P>.001). The Kevloc system in combination with the Artglass opaquer and Photac-Fil Aplitip (0.00 dNm) core material showed no resistance against torsional forces. Significant differences were observed between hybrid core materials and microfilled composite, compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer core materials (P<.001).


CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, the resistance to torsional forces for the core materials on titanium posts increased with the use of chemical surface-conditioning techniques and varied in accordance with the opaquer type. Type of core material also significantly influenced the resistance after thermocycling.
Akişli
Ismail
I
University of Hamburg, Dental School, Hamburg, Germany.
Ozcan
Mutlu
M
Nergiz
Ibrahim
I
D000181:Acrylonitrile / Q000031:analogs & derivatives*; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003738:Dental Cements; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates; D011176:Post and Core Technique; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; D012821:Silanes; D012823:Silicate Cement; D013499:Surface Properties; D014025:Titanium / Q000737:chemistry*; D019415:Torque
D020770:Compomers; D003188:Composite Resins; C400043:Coradent; D003738:Dental Cements; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; C098710:Glass Ionomer Core Material; D006571:Heterocyclic Compounds; D008689:Methacrylates; C081144:Photac-Fil; D019279:Resin Cements; D012117:Resins, Synthetic; C076811:Rocatec; D012821:Silanes; C465121:Siloc; C111282:dental polyglass; C105429:hytac; C112072:kevloc; D012823:Silicate Cement; C079578:Ti-Core composite resin; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C039734:Durafill; C057365:Dentacolor; D014025:Titanium; D000181:Acrylonitrile