Albashaireh Zakereyya S M, Ghazal Muhamad, Kern Matthias
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
J Prosthet Dent. 2008 Nov;100(5):367-73. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60238-3.
The smear layer covering root canal dentin as a result of post space preparation procedures may negatively affect the retention of adhesively cemented glass fiber-reinforced resin posts.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retention of airborne-particle-abraded glass fiber posts luted with 3 different bonding systems after conditioning the canal dentin with acidic conditioning methods.
Post spaces were prepared in 6 groups of 8 endodontically treated single-rooted teeth. Glass fiber-reinforced resin posts were airborne-particle abraded and luted after etching the canal dentin with phosphoric acid and/or applying XP Bond, Clearfil New Bond, or ED Primer. The groups with their respective etching time, primer, and cement combinations were as follows: XP15: 15 seconds of phosphoric acid treatment, XP Bond and Calibra; XP30: 30 seconds of phosphoric acid treatment, XP Bond and Calibra; NB15: 15 seconds of phosphoric acid treatment, Clearfil New Bond and Panavia 21; NB30: 30 seconds of phosphoric acid treatment, Clearfil New Bond and Panavia 21; ED: ED Primer only and Panavia 21; ED15: 15 seconds phosphoric acid treatment, ED Primer and Panavia 21. Specimens were stored in water for 30 days and subjected to simulated aging conditions. Post retention was measured in tension at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by post hoc comparisons using Langley method (alpha =.05). The dislodged posts and canals were examined microscopically at x8 and x20 magnification to evaluate the mode of failure.
For each group, the mean (SD) retention in N was: XP15: 376.8 (39); XP30: 305.5 (27); NB15: 370.3 (31); NB30: 297.6 (52); ED: 301.6 (43); ED15: 373.8 (46). The retention values of ED15, NB15, and XP15 were significantly higher than those of ED, NB30, and XP30 groups, respectively. Microscopic evaluation demonstrated that the failure mode was primarily mixed.
Luting posts with Panavia 21 or Calibra after etching the dentin with phosphoric acid for 15 seconds produced significantly higher retention values than treating dentin for 30 seconds or with ED Primer, only.
根管预备过程中覆盖在根管牙本质上的玷污层可能会对粘结固定的玻璃纤维增强树脂桩的固位产生负面影响。
本研究的目的是评估在使用酸性预处理方法处理根管牙本质后,用3种不同粘结系统粘结的空气颗粒磨蚀玻璃纤维桩的固位情况。
在6组,每组8颗经根管治疗的单根牙中制备桩道。对玻璃纤维增强树脂桩进行空气颗粒磨蚀,然后在使用磷酸蚀刻根管牙本质和/或应用XP Bond、Clearfil New Bond或ED Primer后进行粘结。各实验组及其相应的蚀刻时间、底漆和粘结剂组合如下:XP15组:磷酸处理15秒、XP Bond和Calibra;XP30组:磷酸处理30秒、XP Bond和Calibra;NB15组:磷酸处理15秒、Clearfil New Bond和Panavia 21;NB30组:磷酸处理30秒、Clearfil New Bond和Panavia 21;ED组:仅使用ED Primer和Panavia 21;ED15组:磷酸处理15秒、ED Primer和Panavia 21。将标本在水中保存30天,并进行模拟老化处理。以2mm/min的十字头速度在拉伸状态下测量桩的固位力。使用Mann-Whitney和Kruskal-Wallis检验分析数据,随后使用Langley方法进行事后比较(α = 0.05)。在8倍和20倍放大倍数下对脱位的桩和根管进行显微镜检查,以评估失败模式。
每组的平均(标准差)固位力(N)为:XP15组:376.8(39);XP30组:305.5(27);NB15组:370.3(31);NB30组:297.6(52);ED组:301.6(43);ED15组:373.8(46)。ED15组、NB15组和XP15组的固位值分别显著高于ED组、NB30组和XP30组。显微镜评估表明,失败模式主要为混合性。
用磷酸蚀刻牙本质15秒后,使用Panavia 21或Calibra粘结桩产生的固位值显著高于牙本质处理30秒或仅使用ED Primer的情况。