title: Effect of an adhesive resin luting agent on the dowel-head retention of three different core materials.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  A dowel-and-core restoration may fail due to failure at either the dowel-tooth or dowel head-core material interface. Long-term clinical success of a dowel-and-core restoration depends on retention of both the dowel to the tooth and the dowel head to the core material. Thus, strengthening of the dowel head-core interface is important.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  This study evaluated the retention between a prefabricated dowel and 3 different core materials with or without a dual-polymerized adhesive resin luting agent.
  
  
  METHODS
  Sixty prefabricated dowels (Gold Plated Anchorage Post) were divided into 3 groups (n=20) consisting of 1 of 3 core materials, amalgam (Standalloy F), light-polymerized resin composite (Clearfil Ray), or glass ionomer (Chelon-Silver). Each core group was divided into 2 subgroups (n=10), and a dual-polymerized adhesive resin luting agent (Panavia F) was applied to the dowel heads of 1 of these subgroups before application of the core material. The manufacturing procedure was standardized by using a plastic index (4.5-mm internal diameter and 5-mm height) and a custom-made dowel holder, which held the dowel head. Prepared specimens were stored in water at room temperature for 3 months and then loaded to fracture in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min until failure. Bond strengths were recorded (MPa). Data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) in a 2 x 3 factorial randomized design (alpha=.05). Afterward, core material differences were computed with 1-way ANOVA for both of the bonded and nonbonded groups. Post hoc multiple comparisons were made with the Dunnett C multiple range test.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Dowel-head retention values (MPa) of the tested core materials (mean +/- SD) from the highest to the lowest were as follows: bonded amalgam core, 296.1 +/- 108; bonded composite core, 284.3 +/- 38.3; nonbonded composite core, 177.0 +/- 53.7; nonbonded amalgam core, 128.5 +/- 35.0; bonded glass-ionomer core (GIC), 128.0 +/- 24.5; nonbonded GIC, 61.8 +/- 13.3. Two-way ANOVA revealed significant differences between the core material groups and between the bonded and nonbonded groups (P <.001). The interaction between the core material and bond variables was also significant (P =.018). One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences between the bonded (P <.001) and also between the nonbonded core material groups (P <.001). Post hoc multiple comparisons showed that the dowel-head retention of the GIC was significantly weaker than the post-head retention for amalgam and resin composite, whether bonded or not.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Within the limitations of this study, the adhesive resin luting agent tested appeared to have a significant strengthening effect on the dowel-head retention of the core materials.
authors.affiliation: Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Prosthodontics, Ege University, Izmire, Turkey.
authors.forename: Gokhan
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Aksoy
authors.forename: H Serdar
authors.initials: HS
authors.lastname: Cotert
authors.forename: Levent
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Korkut
mesh_terms: D000269:Adhesives / Q000737:chemistry; D016722:Cermet Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D003723:Dental Amalgam / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D011176:Post and Core Technique; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry* / Q000494:pharmacology; D018030:Silver Compounds / Q000737:chemistry
chemical_list: D000269:Adhesives; D016722:Cermet Cements; D003188:Composite Resins; C438843:Panavia-Fluoro; D019279:Resin Cements; D018030:Silver Compounds; C067445:Chelon Silver; C084849:Clearfil Ray Posterior; D003723:Dental Amalgam