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

Year 2014, Volume: 24 Issue: 1, 50 - 57, 11.02.2015

Uğur Erdemir , Hande Sancaklı Sevda Özel Esra Yıldız

https://doi.org/10.17567/dfd.53876

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

• 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.
• 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.
• Torbjörner A, Karlsson S, Odman PA. Survival rate and failure characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:439-44.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Duret B, Reynaud M, Buret F. A new concept of corono-radicular reconstruction, the Composipost (2). Chir Dent Fr 1990;60:69–77.
• 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.
• Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27: 275–8.
• Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clinical performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2000;13: 9B–13B.
• Bateman G, Ricketts DNJ, Saunders WP. Fibre- based post systems: a review. Br Dent J 2003;195:43–8.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008;10:251-8.
• Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7.
• 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.
• Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:105-8.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Endodontic leakage studies reconsidered. Part I. Methodology, application and relevance. Int Endod J 1993;26:37-43.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Tay FR, Pashley DH, Suh BI, Carvalho RM, Itthagarun A. Single-step adhesives are permeable membranes. J Dent 2002; 30:371-82.
• Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M. Self-adhesive resin cements: A literature review. J Adhes Dent 2008; 10: 251-8.
• 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.
• Crim GA, Garcia-Godoy F. Microleakage: the effect of storage and cyclic duration. J Prosthet Dent 1987;57:574-6.