QUANTITATIVE MICROLEAKAGE EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT FIBER POSTS CEMENTED WITH DIFFERENT ADHESIVE CEMENTS

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the microleakage of two fiber-reinforced post systems cemented with luting agents that utilize two currently available adhesive approaches in three segments of teeth. Materials and Methods: Forty two extracted human maxillary central incisor and canine teeth with straight root canals were prepared using a step-back technique and obturated with gutta-percha using lateral condensation. Following standardized post-space preparations, the roots were divided into 2 fiber-post groups (Carbopost, RelyX Fiber Post) and further divided into 3 subgroups of 7 specimens each for the adhesive approach (Panavia F, RelyX Unicem, Maxcem). All specimens were thermal cycled 2500 times between 5°C and 55°C and stored in methylene-blue solution for 24 hours. Bonded specimens were cut horizontally into three sections (Cervical, Medium, Apical) and each section was evaluated using a stereomicroscope at original magnification X12. For each image, dye penetration was estimated as the ratio of methylene-blue-infiltrated surface divided by total dentin surface. The data were statistically analyzed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whithney U test (p<0.05). Results: Carbon fiber-reinforced posts demonstrated significantly higher microleakage in cervical root sections (p<0.05) than the glass fiber-reinforced posts. For the glass fiber-reinforced post groups, the least microleakage was observed for the Panavia F 2.0 in all root sections, while the highest microleakage was observed for the Maxcem (p<0.05). Regardless of the post types, Panavia F 2.0 demonstrated the highest sealing ability, while Maxcem exhibited higher microleakage in all root sections (p<0.05). Conclusion: In all root section glass fiber-reinforced posts cemented with Panavia F 2.0 had the least microleakage when assessed using a dye penetration technique

Keywords

• Fiber post, microleakage, adhesive cements

FARKLI ADEZİV SİMANLAR İLE SİMANTE EDİLEN FARKLI FİBER POSTLARIN MİKROSIZINTILARININ KANTİTATİF OLARAK DEĞERLENDİRİLMESİ

Abstract

Amaç:  Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı güncel adeziv yaklaşımla simante edilen fiber post sistemlerin dişin üç ayrı bölgesindeki mikrosızıntılarının karşılaştırılmasıdır. 

Gereç ve yöntem: 42 adet düz kök yapısına sahip üst santral ve kanin dişler step-back tekniği ile genişletilip lateral kondensasyon ile güta-perka kullanılarak dolduruldu. Standard post preparasyonlarını takiben hazırlanan kökler iki farklı fiber post gruplarında kullanılmak üzere ayrıldı ve her bir adeziv siman grubu için (Panavia F 2.0, RelyX Unicem, Maxcem)  7 örnek olacak şekilde üç alt gruba ayrıldı. Örnekler 2500 kez  (5-55 C) termal siklus işleminden geçirildi sonrasında 24 saat metilen mavisi solüsyonunda saklandı. Simante edilen örneklerden yatay olarak 3 er kesit elde edildi (Sevikal, Orta, Apikal) ve her bir kesit stereo mikroskop altında X12 büyütmede incelendi. Mikrosızıntı, boyanan dentin yüzeylerinin tüm dentin yüzeyine oranlanması ile elde edildi. Veriler Kruskal-Wallis ve Mann-Whitney U testleri kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak 0.05 anlamlılık düzeyinde değerlendirildi.

Bulgular: Karbon fiber postlar, cam fiber postlara göre servikal kök kesitlerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı derecede daha yüksek mikrosızıntı göstermiştir (p<0.05). Cam fiber post gruplarında ise en az sızıntı tüm kök kesitlerinde Panavia F 2.0 grubunda gözlenirken, en yüksek mikrosızıntı Maxcem gruplarında gözlenmiştir (p<0.05). Post tiplerine bakılmaksızın, Panavia F 2.0 en az mikrosızıntı değerleri gösterirken, Maxcem tüm kök kesitlerinde en fazla mikrosızıntı değerlerine ulaşmıştır.

Sonuç: Tüm kök kesitlerinde Panavia F 2.0 ile simante edilen cam fiber postlar en az mikrosızıntıyı göstermiştir. 

Keywords

• Fiber post, mikrosızıntı, yapıtırma simanları

References

1. Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Tay FR, Cardoso PE, Ferrari M. Bond strength performance of different resin composites used as core materials around fiber posts. Dent Mater 2007;23:95-9.
2. Erdemir U, Mumcu E, Topcu FT, Yildiz E, Yamanel K, Akyol M. Micro push-out bond strengths of 2 fiber post types luted using different adhesive strategies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;110:534-44.
3. Torbjörner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:439-44.
4. Kececi AD, Ureyen Kaya B, Adanir N. Micro push- out bond strengths of four fiber-reinforced composite post systems and 2 luting materials. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:121-8.
5. Cheung W. A review of the management of endodontically treated teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc 2005;136:611– 9.
6. Wang VJ, Chen YM, Yip KH, Smales RJ, Meng QF, Chen L. Effect of two fiber post types and two luting cement systems on regional post retention using the push-out test. Dent Mater 2008;24:372- 7.
7. Duret B, Reynaud M, Buret F. A new concept of corono-radicular reconstruction, the Composipost (2). Chir Dent Fr 1990;60:69–77.
8. Akgungor G, Akkayan B. Influence of dentin bonding agents and polymerization modes on the bond strength between translucent fiber posts and three dentin regions within a post space. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:368-78.

9. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27: 275–8.
10. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2000;13: 9B–13B.
11. Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fibre- based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003;195:43–8.
12. Roberts HW, Leonard DL, Vandewalle KS, Cohen ME, Charlton DG. The effect of a translucent post on resin composite depth of cure. Dent Mater 2004;20:617–22.
13. Mazzoni A, Marchesi G, Cadenaro M, Mazzotti G, Di Lenarda R, Ferrari M, Breschi L. Push-out stress for fibre posts luted using different adhesive strategies. Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:447-53.
14. Nakajima M, Kanemura N, Pereira PN, Tagami J, Pashley DH. Comparative microtensile bond strength and SEM analysis of bonding to wet and dry dentin. Am J Dent 2000;13:324-8.
15. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, Van Landuyt K, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent 2003;28:215-35.
16. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:251-8.
17. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7.
18. Costa RG, De Morais EC, Campos EA, Michel MD, Gonzaga CC, Correr GM. Customized fiber glass posts. Fatigue and fracture resistance. Am J Dent 2012;25:35-8.
19. Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:105-8.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. Korasli D, Ziraman F, Ozyurt P, Cehreli SB. Microleakage of self-etch primer/adhesives in endodontically treated teeth. J Am Dent Assoc 2007;138:634-40.
23. Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Endodontic leakage studies reconsidered. Part I. Methodology, application and relevance. Int Endod J 1993;26:37-43.
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Davidson CL, de Gee AJ, Feilzer A. The competition between the composite-dentin bond strength and the polymerization contraction stres. J Dent Res 1984;63:1396-9.
27. 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.
28. Pest LB, 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.
29. Yoldas O, Alaçam T. Microhardness of composites in simulated root canals cured with light transmitting posts and glass-fiber reinforced composite posts. J Endod 2005;31:104-6.
30. Fukegawa D, Hayakawa S, Yoshida Y, Suzuki K, Osaka A, Van Meerbeek B. Chemical interaction of phosphoric acid ester with hydroxyapatite. J Dent Res 2006; 85:941-4.
31. Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002; 30:371-82.
32. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: A literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 251-8.
33. 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: 809–18.
34. Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage: the effect of storage and cyclic duration. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:574-6.