Effect of surface treatment on retention of glass-fiber endodontic posts.
BACKGROUND
The effects of surface treatment on the retention of prefabricated fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts are not well understood because most studies measure retention shortly after cementation, without artificial aging.


OBJECTIVE
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of surface treatment on the retention of glass-fiber endodontic posts luted with resin cement and subjected to artificial aging.


METHODS
Thirty-two single-rooted teeth were selected, the coronal aspect of each tooth was removed, and the remaining root received endodontic therapy. Specimens were then divided into 4 groups (n = 8). Post spaces were prepared to a depth of 10 mm by using ISO 90 rotary instruments. The tapered posts received 1 of 4 surface treatments: cleaning with alcohol (Alc), cleaning with alcohol and conditioning with ED-Primer material (Alc-ED), airborne-particle abrasion (Air), or airborne-particle abrasion and conditioning with ED-Primer material (Air-ED). All posts were luted with a composite resin luting agent (Panavia F) after conditioning the canal dentin with autopolymerizing dentin primer (ED-Primer) and without acid etching of the canal dentin. After cementation, the specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and subjected to simulated aging conditions consisting of 7500 thermal cycles (5 degrees C/55 degrees C) and 300,000 mechanical loading cycles with 30 N. Retention (N) of the posts was measured with a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. The data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and the Tukey HSD test (alpha = .05). The dislodged posts were also examined microscopically at x8 and x20 magnification to evaluate the mode of failure.


RESULTS
The mean retentive values (N) and SDs of the test groups were as follows: Alc, 375.9 +/- 85.0; Alc-ED, 421.2 +/- 46.8; Air, 534.8 +/- 65.8; and Air-ED, 555.8 +/- 86.9. Airborne-particle-abraded posts had significantly higher retention compared with nonabraded posts (P < .001). Treating the post's surface with ED-Primer material prior to cementation had no significant effect on retention. The failure mode was purely adhesive at the resin cement-post interface for all nonabraded posts. A mixed failure mode, adhesive at the resin cement-dentin interface, at the resin cement-post interface, and cohesive in the resin cement, was observed for airborne-particle-abraded posts.


CONCLUSIONS
Treating the surface of the posts with ED-Primer material before cementation with Panavia F cement produced no significant improvement in the retention of the posts. Airborne-particle abrasion of the surface of the post significantly improved the retention.
Department of Prosthodontics, Propaedeutics, and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Christian-Albrechts University at Kiel, Germany.
Ali
A
Balbosh
Matthias
M
Kern
D020906:Air Abrasion, Dental; D002484:Cementation; D003188:Composite Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D017268:Dental Prosthesis Retention; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003804:Dentin / Q000648:ultrastructure; D004853:Epoxy Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D000431:Ethanol / Q000737:chemistry; D005898:Glass / Q000737:chemistry*; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D011176:Post and Core Technique / Q000295:instrumentation*; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012997:Solvents / Q000737:chemistry; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013696:Temperature; D013997:Time Factors; D019231:Tooth Preparation, Prosthodontic; D019553:Tooth, Nonvital / Q000628:therapy; D014867:Water / Q000737:chemistry
D003188:Composite Resins; C500742:ED Primer II; D004853:Epoxy Resins; D008689:Methacrylates; C438843:Panavia-Fluoro; D019279:Resin Cements; D012997:Solvents; C009753:fiberglass; D014867:Water; D000431:Ethanol