Bond strength of Epiphany (TM) Sealer combined with different adhesive systems photo-activated with LED and QTH

The Epiphany (TM) Sealer is a new dual-curing resin-based sealer and has been introduced as an alternative to gutta-percha and traditional root canal sealers. The canal filling is claimed to create a seal with the dentinal tubules within the root canal system producing a `monoblock` effect between the sealer and dentinal tubules. Therefore, considering the possibility to incorporate the others adhesive systems, it is important to study the bond strength of the resulting cement. Forty-eight root mandibular canines were sectioned 8-mm below CEJ. The dentine discs were prepared using a tapered diamond bur and irrigated with 1% NaOCl and 17% EDTA. Previous the application Epiphany (TM) Sealer, the Epiphany (TM) Primer, AdheSE, and One Up Bond F were applied to the root canal walls. The LED and QTH (Quartz Tungsten Halogen) were used to photo-activation during 45 s with power density of 400 and 720 mW/cm(2), respectively. The specimens were performed on a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min until bond failure occurred. The force was recorded and the debonding values were used to calculate Push-out bond strength. The analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey`s post-hoc tests showed significant statistical differences (P < 0.05) to Epiphany (TM) Sealer/Epiphany (TM) Primer/QTH and EpiphanyTM Sealer/AdheSE/QTH, which had the highest mean values of bond strength. The efficiency of resin-based filling materials are dependent the type of light curing unit used including the power density, the polymerization characteristics of these resin-based filling materials, depending on the primer/adhesive used.

Interfacial evaluation of experimentally weakened roots restored with adhesive materials and fibre posts: An SEM analysis

Objectives: To evaluate the bonding interface in experimentally weakened roots reinforced with adhesive restorative materials and quartz fibre posts, varying the light-exposure time of the composite resin used for root reinforcement. Methods: Twelve extracted human maxillary incisors teeth were used. The crowns were removed and the roots were endodontically treated. After post space preparation, the roots were assigned to four groups. The thickness of the root dentine was reduced and adhesively restored with composite resin light-activated through a translucent fibre post for either 40 s (group 1), 80 s (group 2) or 120 s (group 3). In the case of control (group 4), the roots were not weakened. One day after post cementation, the specimens were sectioned transversally in three slices and processed for scanning electron microscopic analysis to observe bonding interface formation, quality of the hybrid layer and density of resin tags using a four-step scale method. Results: Formation of a hybrid layer and resin tags were evident in all groups. There was no statistically (p > 0.05) significant difference between the regions analysed in each group (Friedman test) and between groups in each section depth (Kruskal-Wallis test). Furthermore, comparison of the flared/reinforced groups showed that the different time;; used for composite resin cure did not affect the results significantly (Kruskal-Wallis test, p = 0.2139). Conclusions: Different light-exposure times used for composite resin polymerisation during root canal reinforcement did not affect significantly the formation and quality of the dentine/adhesive/composite resin bonding interface. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.