J Korean Acad Prosthodont.  2014 Apr;52(2):74-81. 10.4047/jkap.2014.52.2.74.

In vitro study of microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with different adhesive systems and fiber-reinforced posts

• Park JH
• Choi YS

• KMID: 2000132
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2014.52.2.74

Abstract

PURPOSE
While studies have examined microleakage in endodontically treated teeth restored with posts, microleakage among post and adhesive systems remains a concern. This study compared the sealing properties of 3 adhesively luted post systems.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Thirty-six endodontically treated permanent maxillary central incisors were divided into 3 groups: Zirconia-glass fiber, Quartz-glass fiber, Polyethylene fiber posts. Post space was prepared and each post was adhesively luted with 3 systems. The specimens were separately immersed in freshly prepared 2% methylene blue solution for 1 week. The cleaned specimens were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The root portion of tooth were horizontally sectioned into three pieces (apical, middle, and coronal portions). An occlusal view of each section was digitally photographed with a stereomicroscope. The methylene blue-infiltrated surface for each specimen was measured. Dye penetration was estimated as the ratio of the methylene blue-infiltrated surface to the total dentin surface.
RESULTS
No significant differences were found among post types. The variables of middle section and 3-stage adhesive produced significant differences in microleakage between the following post pairs: zirconia-glass fiber versus quartz-glass fiber, zirconia-glass fiber versus polyethylene fiber, and quartz-glass fiber versus polyethylene fiber (P<.05). There were significant differences between the apical and coronal sections of each post type, and between apical versus middle sections of quarze-glass fiber and polyethylene fiber posts (P<.05).
CONCLUSION
No significant differences were found among post types. The 3-stage adhesive produced significant differences in microleakage between the following post pairs.

Keyword

Fiber-reinforced post; Adhesive systems; Microleakage; Resin cement

MeSH Terms

Adhesives*
Dentin
Incisor
Methylene Blue
Polyethylene
Resin Cements
Tooth*
Adhesives
Methylene Blue
Polyethylene
Resin Cements

Reference

1.Erkut S., Gulsahi K., Caglar A., Imirzalioglu P., Karbhari VM., Ozmen I. Microleakage in overflared root canals restored with different fiber reinforced dowels. Oper Dent. 2008. 33:96–105.

2.Segerstro¨m S., Astba¨ck J., Ekstrand KD. A retrospective long term study of teeth restored with prefabricated carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin posts. Swed Dent J. 2006. 30:1–8.

3.Usumez A., Cobankara FK., Ozturk N., Eskitascioglu G., Belli S. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth with different dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2004. 92:163–9.

4.Akkayan B., Gu¨lmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002. 87:431–7.

5.Fredriksson M., Astba¨ck J., Pamenius M., Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 80:151–7.

6.Assif D., Bitenski A., Pilo R., Oren E. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent. 1993. 69:36–40.

7.Sorensen JA., Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent. 1984. 52:28–35.

8.Ferrari M., Vichi A., Garcl′a-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent. 2000. 13:15B–18B.

9.Sidoli GE., King PA., Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent. 1997. 78:5–9.

10.Mannocci F., Ferrari M., Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent. 1999. 1:153–8.

11.Vichi A., Grandini S., Davidson CL., Ferrari M. An SEM evaluation of several adhesive systems used for bonding fiber posts under clinical conditions. Dent Mater. 2002. 18:495–502.

12.Boschian Pest L., Cavalli G., Bertani P., Gagliani M. Adhesive post-endodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. Dent Mater. 2002. 18:596–602.

13.Goracci C., Sadek FT., Fabianelli A., Tay FR., Ferrari M. Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts to intraradicular dentin. Oper Dent. 2005. 30:627–35.

14.Goracci C., Fabianelli A., Sadek FT., Papacchini F., Tay FR., Ferrari M. The contribution of friction to the dislocation resistance of bonded fiber posts. J Endod. 2005. 31:608–12.

15.Pirani C., Chersoni S., Foschi F., Piana G., Loushine RJ., Tay FR., Prati C. Does hybridization of intraradicular dentin really improve fiber post retention in endodontically treated teeth? J Endod. 2005. 31:891–4.

16.Mak YF., Lai SC., Cheung GS., Chan AW., Tay FR., Pashley DH. Microtensile bond testing of resin cements to dentin and an indirect resin composite. Dent Mater. 2002. 18:609–21.

17.Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am. 2001. 45:103–16.

18.Mannocci F., Ferrari M., Watson TF. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and composite cores after cyclic loading: a confocal microscopic study. J Prosthet Dent. 2001. 85:284–91.

19.Jung SH., Min KS., Chang HS., Park SD., Kwon SN., Bae JM. Microleakage and fracture patterns of teeth restored with different posts under dynamic loading. J Prosthet Dent. 2007. 98:270–6.

20.Goto Y., Nicholls JI., Phillips KM., Junge T. Fatigue resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three dowel-and-core systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2005. 93:45–50.

21.Yang B., Ludwig K., Adelung R., Kern M. Microtensile bond strength of three luting resins to human regional dentin. Dent Mater. 2006. 22:45–56.

22.Albashaireh ZS., Ghazal M., Kern M. Effects of endodontic post surface treatment, dentin conditioning, and artificial aging on the retention of glass fiber-reinforced composite resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2010. 103:31–9.

23.Saunders WP., Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994. 10:105–8.

24.Swartz DB., Skidmore AE., Griffin JA Jr. Twenty years of endodontic success and failure. J Endod. 1983. 9:198–202.

25.Demirel F., Saygili G., Sahmali S. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts and tooth-colored restorative materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2005. 25:73–9.

26.Drummond JL., Bapna MS. Static and cyclic loading of fiber-reinforced dental resin. Dent Mater. 2003. 19:226–31.

27.Cohen BI., Pagnillo MK., Newman I., Musikant BL., Deutsch AS. Pilot study of the cyclic fatigue characteristics of five endodontic posts with four core materials. J Oral Rehabil. 2000. 27:83–92.

28.Chersoni S., Acquaviva GL., Prati C., Ferrari M., Grandini S., Pashley DH., Tay FR. In vivo fluid movement through dentin adhesives in endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Res. 2005. 84:223–7.

29.Fogel HM. Microleakage of posts used to restore endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 1995. 21:376–9.

30.Tjan AH., Grant BE., Dunn JR. Microleakage of composite resin cores treated with various dentin bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent. 1991. 66:24–9.

31.Bachicha WS., DiFiore PM., Miller DA., Lautenschlager EP., Pashley DH. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with posts. J Endod. 1998. 24:703–8.

32.Wu MK., Pehlivan Y., Kontakiotis EG., Wesselink PR. Microleakage along apical root fillings and cemented posts. J Prosthet Dent. 1998. 79:264–9.

33.Mannocci F., Qualtrough AJ., Worthington HV., Watson TF., Pitt Ford TR. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results. Oper Dent. 2005. 30:9–15.

34.Lambjerg-Hansen H., Asmussen E. Mechanical properties of endodontic posts. J Oral Rehabil. 1997. 24:882–7.

35.Ferrari M., Vichi A., Grandini S. Efficacy of different adhesive techniques on bonding to root canal walls: an SEM investigation. Dent Mater. 2001. 17:422–9.

36.Albashaireh ZS., Ghazal M., Kern M. Effect of dentin conditioning on retention of airborne-particle-abraded, adhesively luted glass fiber-reinforced resin posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2008. 100:367–73.

37.Bouillaguet S., Troesch S., Wataha JC., Krejci I., Meyer JM., Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater. 2003. 19:199–205.

38.Ravanshad S., Ghoreeshi N. An in vitro study of coronal microleakage in endodontically-treated teeth restored with posts. Aust Endod J. 2003. 29:128–33.

39.Eskitaçcioğlu G., Belli S., Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis). J Endod. 2002. 28:629–33.

40.Ray HA., Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J. 1995. 28:12–8.