title: Bond strength of adhesive cements to root canal dentin tested with a novel pull-out approach.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  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.
authors: Dental Clinic 1, Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany. ebert@dent.uni-erlangen.de
authors: Johannes
authors: J
authors: Ebert
authors: Andrea
authors: A
authors: Leyer
authors: Oliver
authors: O
authors: Günther
authors: Ulrich
authors: U
authors: Lohbauer
authors: Anselm
authors: A
authors: Petschelt
authors: Roland
authors: R
authors: Frankenberger
authors: Matthias Johannes
authors: MJ
authors: Roggendorf
mesh_terms: D001840:Dental Bonding; D003786:Dental Pulp Cavity; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000295:instrumentation*; D003804:Dentin; D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D011176:Post and Core Technique; D019279:Resin Cements; D018709:Statistics, Nonparametric; D013718:Tensile Strength
chemical_list: D017220:Dentin-Bonding Agents; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D019279:Resin Cements