Physicochemical properties of endodontic sealers of different bases

Objective: To assess the setting time (ST), flow (FL), radiopacity (RD), solubility (SB) and dimensional change following setting (DC) of different sealers (AH Plus (R), Polifil, Apexit Plus (R), Sealapex (R), Endomethasone (R) and Endofill (R)) according to American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) Specification 57. Material and methods: Five samples of each material were used for each test. For ST, cast rings were filled with sealers and tested with a Gillmore needle. For FL, the sealer was placed on a glass plate. After 180 s, another plate with 20 g and a load of 100 g were applied on the material, and the diameters of the discs formed were measured. In RD, circular molds were filled with the sealers, radiographed and analyzed using Digora software. For SB, circular molds were filled with the sealers, a nylon thread was placed inside the material and another glass plate was positioned on the set, pressed and stored at 37 degrees C. Samples were weighed, placed in water, dried and reweighed. The water used for SB was analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometry. For DC, circular molds were filled with the sealers, covered by glass plates and stored at 37 degrees C. Samples were measured and stored in water for 30 days. After this period, they were dryed and measured again. Results: Regarding ST, AH Plus (R), Apexit (R) and Endofil (R) sealers are in accordance with ANSI/ADA standards. Endomethasone's manufacturer did not mention the ST; Polifil is an experimental sealer and Sealapex (R) did not set. Considering RD, SB and DC, all sealers were in accordance with ANSI/ADA. The spectrometric analysis showed that a significant amount of K+ and Zn2(+) ions was released from Apexit Plus (R) and Endofill (R), respectively. Conclusion: Except for DC, all other physicochemical properties of the tested sealers conformed to ANSI/ADA requirements.

Effect of Resin Cement System and Root Region on the Push-out Bond Strength of a Translucent Fiber Post

Objectives: This study evaluated the bond strength of luting systems for bonding glass fiber posts to root canal dentin. The hypothesis tested was that there are no differences in bond strength of glass fiber posts luted with different cement systems.Methods: Forty bovine incisors were randomly assigned to five different resin cement groups (n=8). After endodontic treatment and crown removal, translucent glass fiber posts were bonded into the root canal using five different luting protocols (self-cured cement and etch-and-rinse adhesive system; dual-cured cement and etch-and-rinse adhesive system; self-cured cement and self-etch adhesive system; dual-cured cement and self-etch adhesive system; and dual-cured self-adhesive cement). Push-out bond strength was evaluated at three different radicular levels: cervical, middle, and apical. The interface between resinous cement and the post was observed using a stereoscopic microscope.Results: Analysis of variance showed a statistically significant difference among the cements (p<0.05) and the root canal thirds (p<0.05). The self-adhesive resinous cement had lower values of retention.Conclusions: The resin cements used with etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems seem to be adequate for glass fiber post cementation.

Clinical microscopic analysis of protaper retreatment system efficacy considering root canal thirds using three endodontic sealers

To evaluate the efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system and the influence of sealer type on the presence of filling debris in the reinstrumented canals viewed in an operative clinical microscope. Forty-five palatal root canals of first molars were filled with gutta-percha and one of the following sealers: G1, EndoFill; G2, AH Plus; G3, Sealapex. The canals were then reinstrumented with ProTaper Universal rotary system. Roots were longitudinally sectioned and examined under an operative clinical microscope (10x), and the amount of filling debris on canal walls was analyzed using the AutoCAD 2004 software. A single operator used a specific software tool to outline the canal area and the filling debris area in each third (cervical, middle, and apical), as well as the total canal area. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey test at P < 0.05. Sealapex demonstrated significant differences in the average of filling debris area/canal among the 3 thirds. This group revealed that apical third showed more debris than the both cervical and middle third (P < 0.0001). Endofill presented significantly more filling debris than Sealapex in the cervical third (P < 0.05). In the middle (P = 0.12) and apical third (P = 0.10), there were no differences amongst groups. Debris was left in all canal thirds, regardless of the retreatment technique. The greatest differences between techniques and sealers were found in the cervical third. Microsc. Res. Tech. 75:12331236, 2012. (C) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Influence of 0.05% sodium fluoride solutions on microhardness of resin-modified glass ionomer cements

This study aimed to evaluate the influence of fluoride-containing mouthrinse solutions (Fluorgard and Oral B) on the superficial microhardness of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (Vitremer and Fuji II LC). Fifteen discs-shaped specimens of each glass ionomer cement (0 10 mm; 2 mm thick) were prepared, thereby forming two groups. After 24-hour storage in artificial saliva, the microhardness was measure and the data were recorded. Next, each group was divided into three subgroups (n = 5), according to the solution to be immersed in. Control specimens were kept in artificial saliva along the whole experiment. The test specimens were kept in mouthrinse solution for 30 days. Vickers surface microhardness was analyzed at predetermined evaluation periods: 24 h, 48 h, 7, 14, 21 and 30 days after specimens' preparation. Data were subjected to three-way ANOVA and to Tukey test (p < 0.05). A better behavior of Fuji II LC was observed and Fluorgard affected most the characteristics of the tested materials. It may be concluded that fluoride-containing solutions influenced the tested characteristics of materials, mainly of Vitremer.

Efficacy of Endodontic Treatment for Endotoxin Reduction in Primarily Infected Root Canals and Evaluation of Cytotoxic Effects

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Effect of Cement Type, Relining Procedure, and Length of Cementation on Pull-out Bond Strength of Fiber Posts

Introduction: As opposed to the cementation metal posts, the cementation of fiber posts has several details that can significantly influence the success of post retention. This study evaluated the effect of the relining procedure, the cement type, and the luted length of the post on fiber posts retention. Methods: One hundred eighty bovine incisors were selected to assess post retention; after endodontic treatment, the canals were flared with diamonds burs. Post holes were prepared in lengths of 5, 7.5, and 10 mm; the fiber posts were relined with composite resin and luted with RelyX ARC, RelyX Unicem, or RelyX Luting 2. All cements are manufactured by 3M ESPE (St. Paul, MN). Samples were subjected to a pull-out bond strength test in a universal testing machine; the results (N) were submitted to a three-way analysis of variance and the Tukey post hoc test (alpha = 0.05). Results: The improvement of post retention occurred with the increase of the post length luted into the root canal; the relining procedure improved the pull-out bond strength. RelyX Unicem and RelyX ARC showed similar values of retention, both showing higher values than RelyX Luting 2. Conclusion: Post length, the reining procedure, and the cement type are all important factors for improving the retention of fiber posts. (J Endod 2010;36:1543-1546)

INFLUENCE of DIFFERENT SURFACE CONDITIONING PROTOCOLS on MICROTENSILE BOND STRENGTH of SELF-ADHESIVE RESIN CEMENTS TO DENTIN

Statement of problem. According to manufacturers, bonding with self-adhesive resin cements can be achieved without any pretreatment steps such as etching, priming, or bonding. However, the benefit of saving time with these simplified luting systems may be realized at the expense of compromising the bonding capacity.Purpose. The purpose of this study was to assess whether different dentin conditioning protocols influence the bond performance of self-adhesive resin cements to dentin.Material and methods. Flat dentin surfaces from 48 human molars were divided into 4 groups (n=12): 1) control, no conditioning; 2) H(3)PO(4), etching with 37% H(3)PO(4) for 15 seconds; 3) SEBond, bonding with self-etching primer adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond); and 4) EDTA, etching with 0.1M EDTA for 60 seconds. The specimens from each dentin pre-treatment were bonded using the self-adhesive cements RelyX Unicem, Maxcem or Multilink Sprint (n=4). The resin-cement-dentin specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 7 days, and serially sectioned to produce beam specimens of 1.0 mm(2) cross-sectional area. Microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) testing was performed at 1.0 mm/min. Data (MPa) were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test (alpha=.05). Fractured specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope (x40) and classified as adhesive, mixed, or cohesive. Additional bonded interfaces were evaluated under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).Results. Cement-dentin mu TBS was affected by the dentin conditioning approach (P <.001). RelyX Unicem attained statistically similar bond strengths to all pre-treated dentin surfaces. H(3)PO(4)-etching prior to the application of Maxcem resulted in bond strength values that were significantly higher than the other groups. The lowest mu TBS were attained when luting Multilink Sprint per manufacturers' recommendations, while H(3)PO(4)-etching produced the highest values followed by Clearfil SE bonding and EDTA. SEM observations disclosed an enhanced potential of the self-adhesive cements to form a hybrid layer when applied following manufacturer's instructions.Conclusions. When evaluated self-adhesive resin cements are used, selectively etching dentin with H(3)PO(4) prior to luting results in the most effective bonding. (J Prosthet Dent 2011;105:227-235)

Bonding Efficacy of New Self-etching, Self-adhesive Dual-curing Resin Cements to Dental Enamel

Purpose: This study evaluated the efficacy of the union between two new self-etching self-adhesive resin cements and enamel using the microtensile bond strength test.Materials and Methods: Buccal enamel of 80 bovine teeth was submitted to finishing and polishing with metallographic paper to a refinement of #600, in order to obtain a 5-mm(2) flat area. Blocks (2 x 4 x 4 mm) of laboratory composite resin were cemented to enamel according to different protocols: (1) untreated enamel + RelyX Unicem cement (RX group); (2) untreated enamel + Bifix SE cement (BF group); (3) enamel acid etching and application of resin adhesive Single Bond + RelyX Unicem (RXA group); (4) enamel acid etching and application of resin adhesive Solobond M + Bifix SE (BFA group). After 7 days of storage in distillated water at 37 degrees C, the blocks were sectioned for obtaining microbar specimens with an adhesive area of 1 mm(2) (n = 120). Specimens were submitted to the microtensile bond strength test at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The results (in MPa) were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tu key's test.Results: Enamel pre-treatment with phosphoric acid and resin adhesive (27.9 and 30.3 for RXA and BFA groups) significantly improved (p <= 0.05) the adhesion of both cements to enamel compared to the union achieved with as-polished enamel (9.9 and 6.0 for RX and BF).Conclusion: Enamel pre-treatment with acid etching and the application of resin adhesive significantly improved the bond efficacy of both luting agents compared to the union achieved with as-polished enamel.

Bond Strength of Two Resin Cements on Dentin Using Different Cementation Strategies

Purpose:This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength of two resin cements to dentin either with their corresponding self-etching adhesives or employing the three-step etch-and-rinse technique. The null hypothesis was that the etch-and-rinse adhesive system would generate higher bond strengths than the self-etching adhesives.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two human molars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 32, n = 8/per group): G1) ED Primer self-etching adhesive + Panavia F; G2) All-Bond 2 etch-and-rinse adhesive + Panavia F; G3) Multilink primer A/B self-etching adhesive + Multilink resin cement; G4) All-Bond 2 + Multilink. After cementation of composite resin blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm), the specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C, 24 hours), and sectioned to obtain beams (+/- 1 mm2 of adhesive area) to be submitted to microtensile test. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).Results:Although the cement type did not significantly affect the results (p = 0.35), a significant effect of the adhesive system (p = 0.0001) was found on the bond strength results. Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.88751). The etch-and-rinse adhesive provided significantly higher bond strength values (MPa) with both resin cements (G2: 34.4 +/- 10.6; G4: 33.0 +/- 8.9) compared to the self-etching adhesive systems (G1: 19.8 +/- 6.6; G3: 17.8 +/- 7.2) (p < 0.0001). Pretest failures were more frequent in the groups where self-etching systems were used.Conclusion:Although the cement type did not affect the results, there was a significant effect of changing the bonding strategy. The use of the three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive resulted in significantly higher bond strength for both resin cements on dentin.CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCEDual polymerized resin cements tested could deliver higher bond strength to dentin in combination with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems as opposed to their use in combination with self-etching adhesives.(J Esthet Restor Dent 22:262-269, 2010).

Durability of Microtensile Bond to Nonetched and Etched Feldspar Ceramic: Self-adhesive Resin Cements vs Conventional Resin

Purpose: The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of thermocycling (TC), self-adhesive resin cements and surface conditioning on the microtensile bond strength (mu TBS) between feldspathic ceramic blocks and resin cements.Materials and Methods: Fifty-six feldspathic ceramic blocks (10 x 7 x 5 mm) (Vita Mark II) were divided into groups according to the factors "resin cement" (3 cements) and "surface conditioning" (no conditioning or conditioning [10% hydrofluoric acid etching for 5 min + silanization]) (n = 8): group 1: conditioning+Variolink II (control group); group 2: no conditioning+Biscem; group 3: no conditioning+RelyX U100; group 4: no conditioning+Maxcem Elite; group 5: conditioning+Biscem; group 6: conditioning+RelyX U100; group 7: conditioning+Maxcem Elite. The ceramic-cement blocks were sectioned to produce non-trimmed bar specimens (adhered cross-sectional area: 1 +/- 0.1 mm(2)), which were divided into two storage conditions: dry, mu TBS immediately after cutting; TC (12,000x, 5 degrees C/55 degrees C). Statistical significance was deterimined using two-way ANOVA (7 strategies and 2 storage conditions) and the post-hoc Tukey test (p<0.05).Results: Resin cement and thermocycling affected the mu TBS significantly (p = 0.001). In the dry condition, group 5 (18 +/- 6.5 MPa) presented the lowest values of mu TBS when compared to the other groups. TC decreased the mean mu TBS values significantly (p<0.05) for all resin cements tested (9.7 +/- 2.3 to 22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa), except for the resin cement RelyX U100 (22.1 +/- 6.3 MPa). In groups 3 and 4, it was not possible to measure mu TBS, since these groups had 100% pre-test failures during sectioning. Moreover, the same occurred in group 2 after TC, where 100% failure was observed during thermocycling (spontaneous failures).Conclusion: Hydrofluoric acid etching and silanization of the feldspathic ceramic surface are essential for bonding self-adhesive resin cement to a feldspathic ceramic, regardless of the resin cement used. Non-etched ceramic is not recommended.

Influence of Y-TZP ceramic treatment and different resin cements on bond strength to dentin

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Microtensile bond strengths and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of self-adhesive and self-etch resin cements to intact and etched enamel

Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo (FAPESP)

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-adhesive Cements to Dentin With or Without Application of Adhesive Systems

Purpose: To evaluate the bond strength of indirect restorations to dentin using self-adhesive cements with and without the application of adhesive systems.Material and Methods: Seventy-two bovine incisors were used, in which the buccal surfaces were ground down to expose an area of dentin measuring a minimum of 4 x 4 mm. The indirect resin composite Resilab was used to make 72 blocks, which were cemented onto the dentin surface of the teeth and divided into 4 groups (n = 18): group 1: self-adhesive resin cement BiFix SE, applied according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 2: self-adhesive resin cement RelyX Unicem, used according to manufacturer's recommendations; group 3: etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system + BiFix SE; group 4: etch-and-rinse Single Bond 2 adhesive system + RelyX Unicem. The specimens were sectioned into sticks and subjected to microtensile testing in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-200MF). Data were subjected to one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (alpha = 5%).Results: The mean values (+/- standard deviation) obtained for the groups were: group 1: 15.28 (+/- 8.17)(a), group 2: 14.60 (+/- 5.21)(a), group 3: 39.20 (+/- 9.98)(c), group 4: 27.59 (+/- 6.57)(b). Different letters indicate significant differences (ANOVA; p = 0.0000).Conclusion: The application of adhesive systems before self-adhesive cements significantly increased the bond strength to dentin. In group 2, RelyX Unicem associated with the adhesive system Single Bond 2 showed significantly lower mean tensile bond strengths than group 3 (BiFix SE associated with the etch-and-rinse Solobond M adhesive system).