Dental Clinic 1, Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
J Endod. 2011 Nov;37(11):1558-61. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.009. Epub 2011 Sep 15.
A novel approach to the pull-out test using silica-coated and silanized steel spreaders was designed to avoid influence from the post-cement interface. In this study, this test was applied to compare the post retention of adhesive versus conventional cements.
Canals of 90 single-rooted human teeth were prepared to size 60 taper .02; trimmed to an 8-mm root canal length; irrigated with 40% citric acid, 3% NaOCl, and 70% ethanol; and randomly divided into 9 groups (n = 10). Steel spreaders (size 55, taper .02) were silica coated and silanized with the Rocatec system (3M-Espe, Seefeld, Germany), except for a control group using GCem, and cemented with one of these adhesive luting materials (RelyX Unicem [3M-Espe], Clearfil SA Cement [Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan], Bifix SE [Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany], NX3 [Kerr, Orange, CA], GCem [GC Corp, Tokyo, Japan], or SmartCem2 [Dentsply De Trey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany]) or conventional cements (Hoffmann's cement [Hoffmann Dental Manufaktur GmbH, Berlin, Germany] or Ketac Cem [3M-Espe]). After storage in distilled water (24 h/37°C), the spreaders were pulled out in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min.
The failure mode was cohesive or adhesive at the cement-dentin interface in more than 80% of the experimental samples (control group: adhesive to the post: 9/10 samples). Adhesive luting materials retained posts better than conventional cements (t test, P < .001) but with a wide range in variation. RelyX Unicem displayed significantly higher values except when compared with Bifix SE and Clearfil SA (analysis of variance/Student-Newman-Keuls, P < .05). NX3, SmartCem2, and GCem showed no significant differences to Hoffmann's cement and Ketac Cem.
The novel pull-out approach served well in testing the bond strength of different cements to root canal dentin. The bonding effectiveness of adhesive cements varied significantly and was material specific.
本研究设计了一种使用涂覆有二氧化硅和硅烷化的钢扩压器的新型拔出试验方法，旨在避免受到粘结后界面的影响。本研究应用该试验来比较粘结剂和传统水门汀对桩的固位力。
将 90 颗单根人牙的根管预备至 60 锥度.02；修剪至 8mm 的根管长度；用 40%柠檬酸、3%次氯酸钠和 70%乙醇冲洗；并随机分为 9 组（n=10）。除对照组使用 GCem 外，其余各组均使用 Rocatec 系统（3M-Espe，德国 Seefeld）对钢扩压器（55 号，锥度.02）进行涂覆和硅烷化处理，并用以下粘结剂水门汀之一进行粘结（RelyX Unicem [3M-Espe]、Clearfil SA 水门汀[Kuraray Medical，日本冈山]、Bifix SE [Voco GmbH，德国库克斯港]、NX3 [Kerr，美国加利福尼亚州橙市]、GCem [GC 公司，日本东京]或 SmartCem2 [Dentsply De Trey GmbH，德国康斯坦茨]）或传统水门汀（Hoffmann 水门汀[Hoffmann Dental Manufaktur GmbH，德国柏林]或 Ketac Cem [3M-Espe]）。在蒸馏水中储存 24 小时/37°C 后，以 2mm/min 的十字头速度在万能试验机中拔出扩压器。
超过 80%的实验样本（对照组：粘结至桩体：10 个样本中有 9 个）的失效模式为粘结剂-牙本质界面的内聚性或粘结性。粘结剂水门汀的固位力优于传统水门汀（t 检验，P<.001），但变异范围较大。RelyX Unicem 的值明显高于其他各组，除了与 Bifix SE 和 Clearfil SA 比较（方差分析/Student-Newman-Keuls 检验，P<.05）。NX3、SmartCem2 和 GCem 与 Hoffmann 水门汀和 Ketac Cem 无显著差异。
新型拔出试验方法能很好地检测不同水门汀与根管牙本质的粘结强度。粘结剂的粘结效果差异显著，具有材料特异性。
