Search

Objective: Assessment of post surface conditioners [sulfuric acid (SA), Rose Bengal (RB), and sandblasting (SB)] and different luting cements [methyl methacrylate (MMA)-based cement and composite-based cement] on pushout bond strength (PBS) of poly-ether ether-ketone (PEEK) post bonded to canal dentin. Materials and methods: Endodontic treatment was performed on 120 single-rooted human premolar teeth. The preparation of the post space was performed and 4mm of gutta-percha was retained in the apical region of the root. One hundred and twenty PEEK posts were fabricated from a PEEK blank utilizing a Computer aided design-Computer aided manufacture (CAD-CAM) system. The PEEK posts were allocated randomly into four groups based on post surface conditioning (n = 30). Group A: SA, Group B: RB, Group C: SB, and Group D: No conditioning (NC). Each group was further divided into two subgroups based on the luting cement used for bonding (n = 15). Group A1, B1, C1, and D1 specimens were cemented using composite-based resin cement. However, Group A2, B2, C2, and D2 posts were luted with MMA-based resin cement. PBS assessment using a universal testing machine was performed. Failure modes were analyzed under a stereomicroscope. The data relating to the effects of surface treatment and luting types of cement were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey's post hoc test ( p = 0.05). Results: Coronal section of Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B [9.61 ± 0.75 megapascals (MPa)] displayed the highest bond scores of PEEK after root dentin. Whereas it was also discovered that Group D1: NC+Panavia®V5 (2.05 ± 0.72 MPa) presented the lowest PBS scores. Intergroup comparison analysis revealed that Group A2: SA+Super-Bond C&B and Group B2: RB+Super-Bond C&B displayed no significant difference in their bond scores. Conclusions: RB and SA possess the potential to be used as a PEEK post conditioner. MMA-based cement displayed better performance than composite-based cement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim was to compare restorative marginal integrity of ceramic crowns luted with bioactive and resin cements using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) microleakage evaluations and bond strength assessment. Methods: Thirty molar teeth were prepared by sectioning and polishing for dentin exposure for resin cement build-ups. Teeth were randomly divided among three groups of cements: (1) bioactive (ACTIVA); (2) glass ionomer cement (GIC; Ketac Cem); and (3) resin luting agent (Nexus 3). Bonding regime and build-ups (4 mm × 2 mm) were performed using the recommended protocol. For microleakage assessment, 30 premolar teeth were prepared for dentin-bonded crowns using lithium disilicate ceramic and the computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing technique. Crowns were cemented with standard load, cement amount, and duration using three cements (Group A: bioactive; Group B: GIC; Group C: resin) and photopolymerized. Cemented crowns were evaluated for volumetric infiltration using micro-CT (Skyscan, Bruker 1173- at 86 kV, 93 µA, 620 ms) after immersion in 50% solution of silver nitrate (AgNO3) (24 hours). Shear bond strength (SBS) was assessed by fracture of cement build-ups at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. Results: Mean SBS among bioactive (21.54 ± 3.834 MPa) specimens was significantly higher than that for GIC (14.08 ± 3.25 MPa) specimens (p < 0.01), but they were comparable to resin samples (p > 0.05) (24.73 ± 4.32 MPa). Microleakage was significantly lower in crowns luted with bioactive (0.381 ± 0.134) cement compared to GIC (1.057 ± 0.399 mm3) (p < 0.01) and resin (0.734 ± 0.166 mm3) (p = 0.014) cemented crowns. The type of luting agent had a significant influence on the microleakage of crowns and bond strength to dentin (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Bioactive cement exhibited less microleakage and comparable SBS to resin luting agents in in vitro conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]