|Year : 2012 | Volume
| Issue : 5 | Page : 596-602
|Evaluation of push-out bond strength of surface treatments of two esthetic posts
Cherif Adel Mohsen
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University, Egypt
Click here for correspondence address and email
|Date of Submission||12-Jun-2011|
|Date of Decision||26-Dec-2011|
|Date of Acceptance||05-Jun-2012|
|Date of Web Publication||19-Feb-2013|
| Abstract|| |
Objectives: To evaluate the push-out bond strength of two surface treatments of a glass fiber and zirconia ceramic post.
Materials and Methods: Sixty samples were fabricated and divided into two main groups according to the type of esthetic post indicated for maxillary central incisor: glass fiber post and zirconia ceramic post. Each group was subdivided to two subgroups according to the type of bond strength test either between post and root or between post and core. Each subgroup was further subdivided into three classes according to surface treatment: no treatment (control), sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating (SB+SIC+SC), etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating (E+SC). For the subgroups of the bond strength between post and root, each class was subdivided into two subclasses according to the location of the sample (cervical or apical).
Results: Bond strength to root canal or resin core were affected by the type of post, glass fiber post recorded significant higher bond strength than zirconia ceramic. Surface treatment recorded higher values for bond strength, SB+SIC+SC gave higher bond strength than E+SC. Cervical section recorded significant higher bond strength than apical section.
Conclusions: Glass fiber posts recorded higher bond strength than glass ceramic post to both root canal and resin core. Surface treatments increase bond strength for glass fiber and zirconia ceramic posts to both root canal and resin core. SB+SIC+SC gave higher bond strength than E+SC. Bond strength at the cervical section is higher than at the apical section.
Keywords: Ceramic surface treatment, glass fiber post, push-out test, retention, zirconia ceramic posts
|How to cite this article:|
Mohsen CA. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of surface treatments of two esthetic posts. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:596-602
With the increasing demands for esthetic restorations and in an effort to improve the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with a post-and-core system, research has focused on post materials. ,, Various tooth-colored post systems made were introduced in the dental market.  The silica fiber posts, called glass fiber and quartz fiber, which are more tooth colored.  Fiber posts consist of fibers (carbon, quartz, silica, zircon, or glass) in a resin matrix with a silane coupling agent binding the fibers and matrix together.  The major advantage of fiber post is closer elastic modulus of fiber posts (20 GPa) to dentine producing a stress field similar to that of natural dentine and high success rates without the occurrence of root fractures. , Zirconia-based ceramics are also available for restoring non vital teeth. 
|How to cite this URL:|
Mohsen CA. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of surface treatments of two esthetic posts. Indian J Dent Res [serial online] 2012 [cited 2020 Jan 22];23:596-602. Available from: http://www.ijdr.in/text.asp?2012/23/5/596/107345
Partially yttrium-stabilized zirconium-oxide post systems were introduced in the mid 1990s by various investigators. ,, Zirconium-oxide posts demonstrate high fracture resistance due to high flexural strengths which is comparable to that of cast gold posts and cores or titanium posts. ,, Fractures of teeth restored with zirconium-oxide posts are often unrestorable, whereas in vitro studies on fracture strengths of FRC posts showed less catastrophic failures due to a modulus of elasticity that is closer to that of dentin. 
The most commonly used core materials are glass ionomers, resin composites, amalgam, and cast metal alloys. Among which, resin composites are superior to glass ionomers and amalgam in that they enhance the retention and fracture resistance of the posts.  Moreover, resin composite core materials are esthetically pleasing especially under all-ceramic crowns performs as well as dental amalgam in strength, better than amalgam in bond strength to dentine, and similar to tooth structure in hardness and fracture toughness.  The use of prefabricated posts in combination with resin composites to directly build-up core as an alternative to cast posts and cores is expected to yield a more natural and esthetic appearance of the final restoration. ,
To enhance bond strength of glass fiber to root canal and core material, several surface treatments are used: sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles followed by the application of a silane coupling agent, , hydrofluoric acid gel etching and silanization, , application of silane coupling agent only. 
Several surface treatments of zirconia ceramics are cited in the dental literature: sandblasting, ,,,,,, silane application, ,, tribochemical silica coating, ,,, hydrofluoric acid etching (HF), ,,,, selective infiltration etching procedure (SIE),  surface ground ],[, polishing,  heating in conjunction with sandblasting  or surface ground  or polishing,  grinding then polished then subjected to PyrosilPen-Technology,  RF plasma spraying (hexamethyldisiloxane),  firing of micro pearls of low fusing porcelain on the surface,  and SixOy "seed" layer.  Several investigators tested the effect of different surface treatment of zirconia ceramics on bonding to resin cements on surface roughness and on flexural strength. ,,,,,,,,
To test regional differences between bond strength inside the root canal it is, however, necessary to use in vitro testing methods and sectioning of the root. To prevent the superimposition of stresses during specimen cutting, the push-out test seems to be the most accurate and reliable technique for measurement of the bond strengths of posts to root dentin. ,,, A variety of experimental designs has been described for the evaluation of post and core retention. ,,,, Amongst these tests, push-out test using sections of 1-2mm in height was reported to offer reliable and convenient results. ,,
Ohlmann et al. studied the push-out strength of core build-up resin used for fiber-post cementation. They concluded that tribochemical pretreatment of the post and use of dual-curing bonding system increased push-out strength. Cekic-Nagas et al. evaluated the effects of surface treatments on bond strength of resin-core materials to three different types of fiber posts. The surface treatment with hydrofluoric acid gel and sandblasting with aluminum oxide particles significantly enhanced bond strength values of some tested fiber posts, while it had no effect on other fiber posts.
The effect of different surface treatments of zirconia ceramic was studied by Bona et al. They concluded that sandblasting or sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles produced greater Ra values than polishing or etching using hydrofluoric acid. Akgungor G, et al. reported the influence of different surface treatments on the short-term bond strength and durability between a zirconia post and a composite resin core material. Specimens received one of four different surface treatments: airborne-particle abrasion; tribochemical silica coating and silanization; airborne-particle abrasion then containing primer bond/silane coupling agent mixture application; tribochemical silica coating and mixture application containing primer/silane coupling agent. Average surface roughness (Ra) of zirconia posts was measured using an optical profilometer. Push-out tests were performed with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. They found that airborne-particle abrasion and mixture application containing primer/silane coupling agent is recommended to achieve durable bond strength between the zirconia posts and composite resin core material tested.
The aim of this study is to evaluate the push-out bond strength of no treatment to glass fiber and zirconia ceramic posts as well as two surface treatments to zirconia ceramic post. The tested surface treatments were (sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating, etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating).
| Materials and Methods|| |
Sixty samples were fabricated and divided into two main groups (30 samples each) according to the type of post used. Two types of esthetic post indicated for maxillary central incisor were used: glass fiber post (Postec® Plus, size 3 red, length 20 mm diameter of the top 2.0 mm and 10 mm at the apical, Ivoclar Vivadent, AG, Liechtenstein) and zirconia ceramic post (Cosmopost, 20 mm length mm and 1.7 mm in diameter; Ivoclar, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Each group was subdivided to two subgroups according to the type of bond strength test either between post and root or between post and core. Each subgroup was further subdivided into three classes according to the surface treatment of the post: no treatment (control), sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating (SB+SIC+SC), etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating (E+SC). For the subgroups of the bond strength between post and root, each class was further subdivided into two subclasses according to the location of the sample (cervical or apical).
Bond strength between post and root canal test
Thirty freshly extracted intact human anterior maxillary teeth free of decay or fractures were selected for the study. After extraction, teeth were immediately placed under running water to remove blood, curetted to remove soft tissues, polished and then finally stored in standardized saline solution of 0.9% concentration at room temperature till used. All anatomic crowns of teeth were decoronated 2 mm coronal to the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) under water coolant using a large diamond disc mounted on a laboratory motor. Perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth, decoronation was performed. The pulp tissue was removed using short barbed nerve broach (Maillefer), enlarged to file no: 50 using K- File Colorinox (Maillefer). The root canals were irrigated with diluted sodium hypochlorite solution then dried using paper points (Dia-Dent). Lateral condensation technique was carried out for root canal obturation using gutta percha (Maillefer). The roots were then machine milled to have a standardized 20 mm in length. Roots were then mounted in self curing acrylic resin block (Acrostone, Egypt). Root canal fillings were removed leaving 5 mm of gutta percha apically.
The samples were then divided into two groups (15 samples each) according to the type of post: glass fiber and zirconia ceramic. Post preparations were made using drills included in each kit to fit each post type according to the manufacturer's instructions. Post were tried in their corresponding post holes.
Sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating (SB+SIC+SC): The posts were blasted with a mixture of 50-μm Al2O3 particles and 30-μm silica particles (CoJet Sand, 3M-ESPE,USA) at 2.8-bar pressure from a distance of 10 mm for 20 seconds. The posts were then painted using silane coupling agent (ESPE Sil, USA) and allowed to air dry for 5 minutes.
Etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating (E+SC): The posts were etched with 9.5% hydrofluoric acid etching HF (Ultradent Porcelain Etch, USA) for 90 seconds. The post were then painted using silane coupling agent (ESPE Sil, USA) and allowed to air dry for 5 minutes. 
Post spaces were etched with 37% phosphoric acid (Scotchbond etchant; 3M dental products) for 15 seconds, then treated with 10% NaOCl (10 ml of 10% NaOCl was injected into the canals for 1 minute), rinsed thoroughly with air water spray. Dentine was prepared using single bond adhesive system, left to dry for 5 seconds. Excess was removed with a dry paper point then the adhesive was polymerized for 20 seconds with a light polymerizing unit (Elipar, 3M ESPE, Germany). Posts were then cemented with dual cure resin luting cement (ARC RelyX- 3M ESPE, USA) according to the manufacturer's guidelines. A dual polymerizing adhesive resin was mixed for 10 seconds and applied in the canal walls with the use of periodontal prob. A thin layer of cement was placed on the post surface then the post was inserted in the canal. Excess cement was removed. The coronal end of the post was placed directly in contact with the light unit and polymerized from different axial angles to simulate clinical situations for 40 seconds.
After the polymerization of the luting agent, the specimens were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37 ° C.
Push- out test
For all samples, the protruding part of the post was cut-off as well as the apical 5 mm of the root using water-cooled diamond disc (a new disc was used for each sample). Then each root was sectioned perpendicular to its long axis in the same manner to obtain 3 mm-thick cervical and apical section from each sample. A LLOYD universal testing machine (LLOYD Instruments, U.K.), operating with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min was used to apply a compressive loading. A special constructed tip with a 1.0 mm in diameter was used for load application. This tip was positioned to touch only the post. The load was applied on the apical aspect of the root slice in an-apical-coronal direction to push each post toward the larger post space diameter. The load was exerted upon the sample till failure expressed by the extrusion of the post from the slice and confirmed by sudden drop along the load-extension curve recorded by the computer software attached to the testing machine. The maximum failure load was recorded in Newton's (N) and converted into mega Pascal (MPa). The maximum stress was calculated from the recorded peak load divided by the computed surface. To calculate the exact bonding surface, the tapered design of the posts with regard to the respective part of the post was considered. Therefore, each specimen was measured with a digital micrometer and the bonding surface was calculated using the formula of a conical frustrum: A= π (R1 +R 2 )√ (R 1 -R 2 ) 2 +h 2 , where(π) = 3.14 (R1 ) is the radius of the top diameter of the root canal and (R 2 ) is the radius of the bottom diameter of the root canal (h) is the thickness of root slice.
Bond strength between post and core test
Special 30 plastic molds were constructed with the following dimensions 10 mm in diameter and 5 mm in length, a plastic base with a notch in the center. Posts were cut to have 10 mm from the top using water-cooled diamond disc (a new disc was used for each sample). The 5 mm from the top of the tested posts were subjected to surface treatments and then secured in the notch at the center of the plastic mold base using auto-polymerizing acrylic resin material (Acrostone, Egypt). After the post was placed into the plastic mold, resin composites (MultiCore Flow, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) were applied to the mold in 1- to 2-mm thick increments. Each increment was carefully placed onto the post surface, and light-cured according to the manufacturer's instructions, using a halogen light curing unit (Heliolux II, Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The composite resin was always irradiated directly from the open upper side of the mold through the post and then through the mold on each side for 40 s, a total exposure of 120 s. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 ° C.
Surface treatments (same as for post for the bond strength between post and root canal test)
For all samples, the protruding part of the post was cut-off using water-cooled diamond disc (a new disc was used for each sample). Then each sample was sectioned perpendicular to its long axis in the same manner to obtain 3 mm-thick from the top of the sample. Samples were then subjected to a push-out test similar to that performed for the bond strength between post and root canal.
All data obtained in this research were calculated, tabulated, and statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA test and Tukey test.
| Results|| |
Push-out bond strength between post and root canal
Means and standard deviations of the push-out bond strength between post and root canal for the tested groups are presented in [Figure 1]. A one way ANOVA test was used to determine significant differences between the tested samples (P < 0.05), [Table 1], F. ratio was 121.57. The Tukey test for multiple comparisons of means at (P < 0.05) was done following the one-way analysis of variance. The critical value was 0.62. Results showed that the glass fiber post gave higher and significant push-out bond strength than zirconia ceramic. As regard the surface treatment, the results, for both tested posts showed that surface treatment increased the bond strength between the post and the root canal. Also, the results showed a significant difference between SB+SIC+SC and E+SC surface treatment; SB+SIC+SC gave higher values of bond strength. As regard the root section, the cervical section recorded higher bond strength than the apical section for both tested posts and surface treatments.
|Table 1: Analysis of variance between and within different groups for push-out bond strength between post and root canal|
Click here to view
Push-out bond strength between post and core
Means and standard deviations of the push-out bond strength between post cores for the tested groups are presented in [Figure 2]. A one way ANOVA test was used to determine significant differences between the tested samples (P < 0.05), [Table 2], F. ratio was 64.56. The Tukey test for multiple comparisons of means at (P < 0.05) was done following the one-way analysis of variance. The critical value was 1.59. The results showed that glass fiber post gave higher bond strength than the zirconia ceramic post. There was a significant difference between the two tested posts. Also, surface treatments recorded higher bond strength than the control group (no treatment). Also, the results showed a significant difference between SB+SIC+SC and E+SC surface treatment; SB+SIC+SC gave higher values of bond strength.
|Table 2: Analysis of variance between and within different groups for push-out bond strength between post and core|
Click here to view
| Discussion|| |
In this study, the post spaces were etched with 37% phosphoric for 15 seconds and then treated with 10% NaOCl. This procedure was performed to remove the smear layer and to increase the surface area of bonding. Several investigators draw the attention to the importance of surface treatment of the root canal to remove the smear layers. Some of them reported that smear removal may promote micromechanical engagement in the dentinal tubules for the cement leading to increase post retention. ,,
Different cement types have been proposed for luting glass fiber and zirconia ceramic post (i.e., traditional cements, self-adhesive cements, GICs). ,, Resin-bonded luting has proved to be the best choice, although the use of conventional cementation may also be permissible. Ceramic/resin cement bonds may be more effective and durable if associated with micromechanical retentions: the achievement of roughened surfaces may allow the resin cement to penetrate and flow into these micro-retentions, thus creating a stronger micromechanical interlock. , Although several surface treatments have been recently investigated both under in vitro and in vivo conditions, concerns still exist regarding the selection of the most appropriate surface pre-treatment. ,,
Application of silane was used in this study due to the fact that silane coupling agents lower the surface tension of a substrate, wet it and make its surface energy higher, and hence accessible for effective bonding.  Thus, a hydrophobic matrix (resin composite) can adhere to hydrophilic surfaces such as silica, glass, and glass-ceramics. 
A variety of experimental designs has been described for the evaluation of post and core retention. , Amongst these tests, push-out test using sections of 1-2mm in height was reported to offer reliable and convenient results. ,, The push-out test assesses information about the actual bond strength of passive posts. Goraci et al,  showed that the push-out test appeared to be accurate and reliable method to record low values of bond strength as the relative weak post-root bond. This technique allows also testing regional differences in bond strength inside the root canals.
The surface treatments evaluated in the present study include mechanical and chemical bonding procedures (sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating, etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating). Micromechanical bonding was achieved by roughening the post surface either with 50-μm grain sized pure Al2 O 3 particles and 30 μm silica particles or by the application of 9.5% hydrofluoric acid etching HF. Chemical bonding was achieved by the application of silane coupling agent and the embedding silica particles on the surface of the zirconia ceramics.
As regard to the effect of post type, the results showed that glass fiber posts recorded higher bond strength than zirconia ceramic post to root canal and core material. These results are in accordance with other studies. ,, This may be due to the fact of the good bond between the resin matrix of the fiber post and the resin cement and the lower bonding affinity of ceramic posts to adhesive resin cements.  Also, due to the affinity in terms of bonding between the methacrylate resin matrix of the post and the methacrylate-based adhesives and resin cements. ,
In this present study, the results showed a statistical significant difference between the untreated subgroup and all the other treated subgroups. These results are in accordance with previous investigators. ,,, These results may be due to the efficacy of the sandblasting and HF treatment in modifying the fiber post surfaces as well as zirconia ceramic post. , These surface treatments may cause surface roughness of posts and an increase in the surface area available for bonding as well as the presence of retentive spaces.  Surface roughening increases the total bonding area and also the wetability of posts with the composite resin material. , The partial removal of the resin matrix from glass fiber post due to sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles and hydrofluoric acid treatment increased the number of exposed glass fibers and consequently the surface area available for reacting with the silane, allowing for higher bond strengths than untreated posts.  Also, sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles causes the penetration of the silica-modified Al 2 O 3 particles into the ceramic posts.  Etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating for has been routinely applied for etching ceramics thanks to the dissolution of the their glossy matrix. ,
Sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating (SB+SIC+SC) gave higher value for the post-to-tooth or post to resin core bond strength than etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating (E+SC). There was a statistically significant difference between this treatment and the other treatment. This may be due to the fact that this treatment, (SB+SIC+SC), combines micromechanical retention produced by airborne-particle abrasion and chemical bonding resulting from silicoating and silanization of the ceramic surface.  This technique depends on the penetration depth of the silica-modified Al 2 O 3 particles into the ceramic or glass fiber material.  This type of treatment increases in the silica content of post surfaces which may facilitate siloxane bond formation. , Also, silica modified post surface are chemically more reactive to the resin.  These results are in agreement with other investigators. ,, On the other hand, Radovic et al. revealed that sandblasting is the important factor for increasing micro-tensile strength, whereas use of an additional silanization procedure resulted in no further improvement.
Results from determination of push-out bond strength for different root regions in this study were significantly affected by the region of the root canal. Push-out bond strength for the cervical section in this study was higher than for the apical section, in agreement with the results of Bouillaguet et al. Mallmann et al. and Ohlamnn et al. The reasons could be the better accessibility of the cervical segments, better photo-activation compared with chemical activation alone,  or tubule orientation and density in the cervical parts of the root canal. 
| Conclusion|| |
- Glass fiber posts recorded higher bond strength than zirconia ceramic post to both root canal and resin core.
- Surface treatments increase bond strength for glass fiber and zirconia ceramic posts to both root canal and resin core.
- Sandblasting in conjunction with silica particles then silane coating gave higher bond strength than etching using hydrofluoric acid then silane coating.
- Bond strength at the cervical section is higher than at the apical section.
| References|| |
|1.||Bitter K, Priehn K, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strengths of various luting agents to tooth-colored posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:302-10. |
|2.||Giovani AR, Vansan LP, de Sousa Neto MD, Paulino SM. In vitro fracture resistance of glass-fiber and cast metal posts with different lengths. J Prosthet Dent 2009;101:183-8. |
|3.||Akgungor G, Sen D, Aydin M. Influence of different surface treatments on the short-term bond strength and durability between a zirconia post and a composite resin core material. J Prosthet Dent 2008;99:388-99. |
|4.||Le Bell-Rönnlöf AM, Lahdenperä M, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Bond strength of composite resin luting cements to fiberreinforced composite root canal posts. J Contemp Dent Pract 2007;8:17-24. |
|5.||Bateman G, Ricketts DN, Saunders WP. Fibre-based post systems: A review. Br Dent J 2003;195:43-8. |
|6.||Akgungor G, Akkayan B. Influence of dentin bonding agents and polymerization modes on the bond strength between translucent fiber posts and three dentin regions within a post space. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:368-78. |
|7.||Lassila LV, Tanner J, Le Bell AM, Narva K, Vallittu PK. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dental Materials 2004;20:29-36. |
|8.||Vano M, Goracci C, Monticelli F, Tognini F, Gabriele M, Tay FR, et al. The adhesion between fibre posts and composite resin cores: The evaluation of microtensile bond strength following various surface chemical treatments to posts. Int Endo J 2006;39:31-9. |
|9.||Meyenberg KH, Luthy H, Schaerer P. Zirconia posts: A new all-ceramic concept for nonvital abutment teeth. J Esthet Dent 1995;7:73-80. |
|10.||Dietschi D, Romelli M, Goretti A. Adaptation of adhesive posts and cores to dentin after fatigue testing. Int J Prosthodont 1997;10:498-507. |
|11.||Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25. |
|12.||Heydecke G, Butz F, Hussein A, Strub JR. Fracture strength after dynamic loading of endodontically treated teeth restored with different postand- core systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:438-45. |
|13.||Pontius O, Hutter JW. Survival rate and fracture strength of incisors restored with different post and core systems and endodontically treated incisors without coronoradicular reinforcement. J Endod 2002;28:710-5. |
|14.||Heydecke G, Butz F, Strub JR. Fracture strength and survival rate of endodontically treated maxillary incisors with approximal cavities after restoration with different post and core systems: An in-vitro study. J Dent 2001;29:427-33. |
|15.||Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7. |
|16.||Gu S, Rasimick BJ, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. In vitro evaluation of five core materials. J Prosthodont 2007;16:25-30. |
|17.||Artopoulou II, O'Keefe KL, Powers JM. Effect of core diameter and surface treatment on the retention of resin composite cores to prefabricated endodontic posts. J Prosthodont 2006;15:172-9. |
|18.||Bell AM, Lassila LV, Kangasniemi I, Vallittu PK. Bonding of fibre-reinforced composite post to root canal dentin. J Dent 2005;33:533-9. |
|19.||Cekic-Nagas I, Sukuroglu E, Canay S. Does the surface treatment affect the bond strength of various fibre-post systems to resin-core materials? J Dent 2011;39:71-9. |
|20.||Ohlamnn B, Fickenscher F, Dreyhaupt J, Rammelsberg P, Gabbert O, Schmitter M. The effect of two luting agents, pretreatment of the post, and pretreatment of the canal dentin on the retention of fiber-reinforced composite posts. J Dent 2008;36:87-92. |
|21.||Vano M, Cury AH, Goracci C, Chieffi N, Gabriele M, Tay RF, et al. Retention of fiber posts cemented at different time intervals in canals obturated using an epoxy resin sealer. J Dent 2008;36:801-7. |
|22.||Manicone PF, Iommetti PR, Raffaelli L. An overview of zirconia ceramics: Basic properties and clinical applications. J Dent 2007;3 5:819-26. |
|23.||Casucci A, Osorio E, Osorio R, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Mazzitelli C. Ferrari Influence of different surface treatments on surface zirconia Frameworks. J Dent 2009;37:891-7. |
|24.||Guazzato M, Quach L, Albakry M, Swain MV. Influence of surface and heat treatments on the flexural strength of Y-TZP dental ceramic. J Dent 2005;33:9-18. |
|25.||Kosmac T, Oblak C, Jevnikar P, Funduk N, Marion L. Strength and Reliability of Surface Treated YTZP Dental Ceramics. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;53:304-13. |
|26.||de Oyagüe RC, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio E, Ferrari M, Osorio R. Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to densely-sintered zirconium-oxide ceramic. Dent Mater 2009;25:172-9. |
|27.||Ozcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19:725-31. |
|28.||Matinlinna JP, Heikkinen T, Ozcan M, Lassila LV, Vallittu PK. Evaluation of resin adhesion to zirconia ceramic using some organosilanes. Dent Mater 2006;22:824-31. |
|29.||Janda R, Roulet JF, Wulf M, Tiller HJ. A new adhesive technology for all-ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19:567-73. |
|30.||Piascik JR, Swift EJ, Thompson JY, Grego S, Stoner BR. Surface modification for enhanced silanation of zirconia ceramics. Dent Mater 2009;25:1116-21. |
|31.||Goracci C, Tavares AU, Fabianelli A, Monticelli F, Raffaelli O, Cardoso PC, et al. The adhesion between fiber posts and root canal walls: Comparison between microtensile and pushout bond strength measurements. Euro J Oral Sci 2004;112:353-61. |
|32.||Giachetti L, Grandini S, Calamai P, Fantini G, Russo DS. Translucent fiber post cementation using light- and dual curing adhesive techniques and a self-adhesive material: Push-out test. J Dent 2009;37:638-42. |
|33.||Hochman N, Feinzaig I, Zalkind M. Effect of design of prefabricated posts and post heads on the retention of various cements and core materials. J Oral Rehab 2003;30:702-7. |
|34.||Monticelli F, Toledano M, Tay FR, Cury AH, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Post-surface conditioning improves interfacial adhesion in post/core restorations. Dent Mater 2006;22:602-9. |
|35.||Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Uctasli S, Lassila LV. In vitro evaluation of push-out bond strength of direct ceramic inlays to tooth surface with fiber-reinforced composite at the interface. J Prosthet Dent 2007;97:271-8. |
|36.||Cekic-Nagas I, Ergun G, Nagas E, Tezvergil A, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV. Comparison between regional micropush-out and microtensile bond strength of resin composite to dentin. Acta Odontol Scand 2008;66:73-81. |
|37.||Della Bona AD, Donassollo TA, Demarco FF, Barrett AA, Mecholsky JJ Jr. Characterization and surface treatment effects on topography of a glass-infiltrated alumina/zirconia-reinforced ceramic. Dent Mater 2007;23:769-75. |
|38.||Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, Lee IK. Push-out bond strengths of tooth colored posts bonded with different adhesive systems. Am J Dent 2004;17:422-6. |
|39.||Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:115-8. |
|40.||Pioch T, Kobaslija S, Schagen B, Gotz H. Interfacial micromorphology and tensile bond strength of dentin bonding systems after NaOCl treatment. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:135-42. |
|41.||Mohsen SA. The effect of post size and surface treated root canal on the retentivity of split threaded post. Egyptian Dental Journal 2002;48:1667-76. |
|42.||de Oyagüe RC, Monticelli F, Toledano M, Osorio E, Ferrari M, Osorio R. Influence of surface treatments and resin cement selection on bonding to densely-sintered zirconium-oxide ceramic. Dent Mater 2009;25:172-9. |
|43.||Aboushelib MN, Matinlinna JP, Salameh Z, Ounsi H. Innovations in bonding to zirconia-based materials. Part I. Dent Mater 2008;24:1268-72. |
|44.||Spohr AM, Sobrinho LC, Consani S, Sinhoreti MA, Knowles JC. Influence of surface conditions and silane agent on the bond of resin to IPS Empress 2 ceramic. Intl J Prosthodont 2003;16:277-82. |
|45.||Ozcan M, Alkumru HN, Gemalmaz D. The effect of surface treatment on the shear bond strength of luting cement to a glass-infiltrated alumina ceramic. Intl J Prosthodont 2001;14:335-9. |
|46.||Senyilmaz DP, Palin WM, Shortall AC, Burke FJ. The effect of surface preparation and luting agent on bond strength to a zirconium-based ceramic. Oper Dent 2007;32:623-30. |
|47.||Blatz MB, Chiche G, Holst S, Sadan A. Influence of surface treatment and simulated aging on bond strengths of luting agents to zirconia. Quintessence Int 2007;38:745-53. |
|48.||Marsden JG. Organofunctional silane coupling agents. In: Skeist I, editor. Handbook of adhesion. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold; 1990. |
|49.||O'Keefe KL, Miller BH, Powers JM. In vitro tensile bond strength of adhesive cements to new post materials. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:47-51. |
|50.||Ferrari M, Vichi A, Grandini S. Efficacy of different adhesive techniques on bonding to root canal walls: An SEM investigation. Dent Mater 2001;17:422-9. |
|51.||Monticelli F, Osorio R, Albaladejo A, Aguilera FS, Ferrari M, Tay FR, et al. Effects of adhesive systems and luting agents on bonding of fiber post to root canal dentin. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006;77:195-200. |
|52.||Amaral R, Ozcan M, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Microtensile bond strength of a resin cement to glass infiltrated zirconia-reinforced ceramic: The effect of surface conditioning. Dent Mater 2006;22:283-90. |
|53.||Valandro LF, Ozcan M, Bottino MC, Bottino MA, Scotti R, Bona AD. Bond strength of a resin cement to high-alumina and zirconia-reinforced ceramics: The effect of surface conditioning. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:175-81. |
|54.||Magni E, Mazzitelli C, Papacchini F, Radovic I, Goracci C, Coniglio I, et al. Adhesion between fiber posts and resin uting agents: a microtensile bond strength test and an SEM investigation following different treatments of the post surface. J Adhes Dent 2007;9:195-202. |
|55.||Burke FJ, Fleming GJ, Nathanson D, Marquis PM. Are adhesive technologies needed to support ceramics? An assessment of the current evidence. J Adhes Dent 2002;4:7-22. |
|56.||Javid AH, Hassani AH, Golshan G. Selective removal of heavy metals from ferric chloride caused by etching processes by using sulfide precipitation. J Env Sc Tech; 2004, No 20. |
|57.||Bottino MA, Valandro LF, Scotti R, Buso L. Effect of surface treatments on the resin bond to zirconium based ceramic. Int J Prosthodont 2005;18:60-5. |
|58.||Atsu SS, Kilicarslan MA, Kucukesmen HC, Aka PS. Effect of zirconium-oxide ceramic surface treatments on the bond strength to adhesive resin. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:430-6. |
|59.||Xible AA, de Jesus Tavarez RR, de Araujo Cdos R, Bonachela WC. Effect of silica coating and silanization on flexural and composite-resin bond strengths of zirconia posts: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:224-9. |
|60.||Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Cury AH, Coniglio I, Vulicevic ZR, et al. The effect of sandblasting on adhesion of a dual-cured resin composite to methacrylic fiber posts: Microtensile bond strength and SEM evaluation. J Dent 2007;35:496-502. |
|61.||Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater 2003;19:199-205. |
|62.||Mallmann A, Jacques LB, Valandro LF, Mathias P, Muench A. Microtensile bond strength of light- and self-cured adhesive systems to intraradicular dentin using a translucent fiber post. Oper Dent 2005;30:500-6. |
|63.||Hofmann N, Papsthart G, Hugo B, Klaiber B. Comparison of photo-activation versus chemical or dual-curing of resinbased luting cements regarding flexural strength, modulus and surface hardness. J Oral Rehabil 2001;28:1022-8. |
|64.||Ferrari M, Mannocci F, Vichi A, Cagidiaco MC, Mjor IA. Bonding to root canal: Structural characteristics of the substrate. Am J Dent 2000;13:255-60. |
Cherif Adel Mohsen
Department of Fixed Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Minia University
Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
[Table 1], [Table 2]
|This article has been cited by|
||Application of Resin Adhesive on the Surface of a Silanized Glass Fiber–Reinforced Post and Its Effect on the Retention to Root Dentin
| ||Fernanda Weingartner Machado,Mayara Bossardi,Tatiana dos Santos Ramos,Lisia Lorea Valente,Eliseu Aldrighi Münchow,Evandro Piva |
| ||Journal of Endodontics. 2014; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||tensile strength of glass fiber posts submitted to different surface treatments
| ||faria, m.i.a. and gomes, é.a. and joão, d.c.m. and filho, m.s. and filho, c.b.s. and paulino, s.m. |
| ||brazilian dental journal. 2013; 24(6): 626-629 |
||effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of glass fiber post to root dentin an in vitro study
| ||xiao jie, l.i. and nuo, x.u. and ming, d. and jun, z.e. and xian, r.e.n. and shu - hai, h.u. |
| ||journal of dalian medical university. 2013; 35(5): 424-429 |
||Tensile Strength of Glass Fiber Posts Submitted to Different Surface Treatments
| ||Maria Isabel A. Faria,Erica Alves Gomes,Danielle Cristine Messias,Joao Manoel Silva Filho,Celso Bernardo Souza Filho,Silvana Maria Paulino |
| ||Brazilian Dental Journal. 2013; 24(6): 626 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Tensile Strength of Glass Fiber Posts Submitted to Different Surface Treatments
| ||Maria Isabel A. Faria,Erica Alves Gomes,Danielle Cristine Messias,Joao Manoel Silva Filho,Celso Bernardo Souza Filho,Silvana Maria Paulino |
| ||Brazilian Dental Journal. 2013; 24(6): 626 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
| Article Access Statistics|
| Viewed||3406 |
| Printed||83 |
| Emailed||3 |
| PDF Downloaded||148 |
| Comments ||[Add] |
| Cited by others ||5 |