Restor Dent Endod.  2023 Aug;48(3):e30. 10.5395/rde.2023.48.e30.

Comparison between a bulk-fill resinbased composite and three luting materials on the cementation of fiberglass-reinforced posts

• Kenji Shimokawa CA
• Acatauassú Carneiro PM
• Silva Lobo TRd
• Braga RR
• Turbino ML
• Matos AB

• KMID: 2548233
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2023.48.e30

Abstract

Objectives
This study verified the possibility of cementing fiberglass-reinforced posts using a flowable bulk-fill composite (BF), comparing its push-out bond strength and microhardness with these properties of 3 luting materials.
Materials and Methods
Sixty endodontically treated bovine roots were used. Posts were cemented using conventional dual-cured cement (CC); self-adhesive cement (SA); dual-cured composite (RC); and BF. Push-out bond strength (n = 10) and microhardness (n = 5) tests were performed after 1 week and 4 months of storage. Two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), 1-way ANOVA, t-test, and Tukey post-hoc tests were applied for the pushout bond strength and microhardness results; and Pearson correlation test was applied to verify the correlation between push-out bond strength and microhardness results (α = 0.05).
Results
BF presented higher push-out bond strength than CC and SA in the cervical third before aging (p < 0.01). No differences were found between push-out bond strength before and after aging for all the luting materials (p = 0.84). Regarding hardness, only SA presented higher values measured before than after aging (p < 0.01). RC and BF did not present 80% of the maximum hardness at the apical regions. A strong positive correlation was found between the luting materials' push-out bond strength and microhardness (p < 0.01, R ² = 0.7912).
Conclusions
The BF presented comparable or higher push-out bond strength and microhardness than the luting materials, which indicates that it could be used for cementing resin posts in situations where adequate light curing is possible.

Keyword

Bond strength; Hardness tests; Resin-based cement; Resin-based composite

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Percentage of failure according to its classification: Adhesive failure between tooth and luting material, mixed failure and adhesive failure between post and luting material.CC, conventional dual-cured resin-based cement; SA, self-adhesive resin-based cement; RC, dual-cured resin-based composite; BF, bulk-fill resin-based composite.

• 

  Figure 2 Maximum hardness ratio before and after aging. The area in which the hardness is below 80% of the maximum hardness is highlighted in red.CC, conventional dual-cured resin-based cement; SA, self-adhesive resin-based cement; RC, dual-cured resin-based composite; BF, bulk-fill resin-based composite.

• 

  Figure 3 Scatter plot for push-out bond strength and hardness mean values. Pearson correlation test showed a strong positive linear correlation (p < 0.01).

Reference

1. Morgano SM, Rodrigues AH, Sabrosa CE. Restoration of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Clin North Am. 2004; 48:vi397–vi416.

2. Santos AF, Meira JB, Tanaka CB, Xavier TA, Ballester RY, Lima RG, Pfeifer CS, Versluis A. Can fiber posts increase root stresses and reduce fracture? J Dent Res. 2010; 89:587–591. PMID: 20348486.

3. Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bertini F, Giuliani V. Translucent fiber post cementation using a light-curing adhesive/composite system: SEM analysis and pull-out test. J Dent. 2004; 32:629–634. PMID: 15476957.

4. Bitter K, Meyer-Lueckel H, Priehn K, Kanjuparambil JP, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Effects of luting agent and thermocycling on bond strengths to root canal dentine. Int Endod J. 2006; 39:809–818. PMID: 16948667.

5. Bolhuis P, de Gee A, Feilzer A. The influence of fatigue loading on the quality of the cement layer and retention strength of carbon fiber post-resin composite core restorations. Oper Dent. 2005; 30:220–227. PMID: 15853108.

6. Schwartz RS. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics. Part 2: bonding in the root canal system-the promise and the problems: a review. J Endod. 2006; 32:1125–1134. PMID: 17174666.

7. Goracci C, Sadek FT, Fabianelli A, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts to intraradicular dentin. Oper Dent. 2005; 30:627–635. PMID: 16268398.

8. Ferracane JL, Greener EH. The effect of resin formulation on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorative resins. J Biomed Mater Res. 1986; 20:121–131. PMID: 3949822.

9. Nakano EL, de Souza A, Boaro L, Catalani LH, Braga RR, Gonçalves F. Polymerization stress and gap formation of self-adhesive, bulk-fill and flowable composite resins. Oper Dent. 2020; 45:E308–E316. PMID: 32516396.

10. Lima RBW, Troconis CCM, Moreno MBP, Murillo-Gómez F, De Goes MF. Depth of cure of bulk fill resin composites: a systematic review. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2018; 30:492–501. PMID: 30375146.

11. Helvey GA. Creating super dentin: using flowable composites as luting agents to help prevent secondary caries. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013; 34:288–300. PMID: 23895566.

12. Tomaselli LO, Oliveira DCRS, Favarão J, Silva AFD, Pires-de-Souza FCP, Geraldeli S, Sinhoreti MAC. Influence of pre-heating regular resin composites and flowable composites on luting ceramic veneers with different thicknesses. Braz Dent J. 2019; 30:459–466. PMID: 31596330.

13. Ghodsi S, Aghamohseni MM, Arzani S, Rasaeipour S, Shekarian M. Cement selection criteria for different types of intracanal posts. Dent Res J. 2022; 19:51.

14. Sarkis-Onofre R, Skupien JA, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Pereira-Cenci T. The role of resin cement on bond strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent. 2014; 39:E31–E44. PMID: 23937401.

15. Bergoli CD, Brondani LP, Wandscher VF, Pereira G, Cenci MS, Pereira-Cenci T, Valandro LF. A multicenter randomized double-blind controlled clinical trial of fiber post cementation strategies. Oper Dent. 2018; 43:128–135. PMID: 29504877.

16. Moorthy A, Hogg CH, Dowling AH, Grufferty BF, Benetti AR, Fleming GJ. Cuspal deflection and microleakage in premolar teeth restored with bulk-fill flowable resin-based composite base materials. J Dent. 2012; 40:500–505. PMID: 22390980.

17. Braga RR, Ballester RY, Ferracane JL. Factors involved in the development of polymerization shrinkage stress in resin-composites: a systematic review. Dent Mater. 2005; 21:962–970. PMID: 16085301.

18. do Carmo SS, Néspoli FFP, Bachmann L, Miranda CES, Castro-Raucci LMS, Oliveira IR, Raucci-Neto W. Influence of early mineral deposits of silicate- and aluminate-based cements on push-out bond strength to root dentine. Int Endod J. 2018; 51:92–101. PMID: 28470849.

19. Goracci C, Grandini S, Bossù M, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. Laboratory assessment of the retentive potential of adhesive posts: a review. J Dent. 2007; 35:827–835. PMID: 17766026.

20. De-Deus G, Souza E, Versiani M. Methodological considerations on push-out tests in Endodontics. Int Endod J. 2015; 48:501–503. PMID: 25851123.

21. Palin WM, Leprince JG, Hadis MA. Shining a light on high volume photocurable materials. Dent Mater. 2018; 34:695–710. PMID: 29549967.

22. Watts DC, Amer O, Combe EC. Characteristics of visible-light-activated composite systems. Br Dent J. 1984; 156:209–215. PMID: 6584142.

23. Shortall AC, Wilson HJ, Harrington E. Depth of cure of radiation-activated composite restoratives--influence of shade and opacity. J Oral Rehabil. 1995; 22:337–342. PMID: 7616343.

24. Rosado L, Münchow EA, de Oliveira E, Lacerda-Santos R, Freitas DQ, Carlo HL, Verner FS. Translucency and radiopacity of dental resin composites - is there a direct relation? Oper Dent. 2023; 48:E61–E69. PMID: 37079916.

25. Vieira C, Bachmann L, De Andrade Lima Chaves C, Correa Silva-Sousa YT, Correa Da Silva SR, Alfredo E. Light transmission and bond strength of glass fiber posts submitted to different surface treatments. J Prosthet Dent. 2021; 125:674.e1–674.e7.

26. Shimokawa C, Turbino ML, Giannini M, Braga RR, Price RB. Effect of curing light and exposure time on the polymerization of bulk-fill resin-based composites in molar teeth. Oper Dent. 2020; 45:E141–E155. PMID: 32053458.

27. Montanari M, Prati C, Piana G. Differential hydrolytic degradation of dentin bonds when luting carbon fiber posts to the root canal. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011; 16:e411–e417. PMID: 20526268.

28. Ramos MB, Pegoraro TA, Pegoraro LF, Carvalho RM. Effects of curing protocol and storage time on the micro-hardness of resin cements used to lute fiber-reinforced resin posts. J Appl Oral Sci. 2012; 20:556–562. PMID: 23138743.

29. Tay FR, Carvalho RM, Pashley DH. Water movement across bonded dentin - too much of a good thing. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004; 12:12–25.

30. Ferracane JL, Stansbury JW, Burke FJ. Self-adhesive resin cements - chemistry, properties and clinical considerations. J Oral Rehabil. 2011; 38:295–314. PMID: 21133983.

31. Ferracane JL. Resin-based composite performance: are there some things we can’t predict? Dent Mater. 2013; 29:51–58. PMID: 22809582.