These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Bond strength of adhesive cements to root canal dentin tested with a novel pull-out approach.
    Author: Ebert J, Leyer A, Günther O, Lohbauer U, Petschelt A, Frankenberger R, Roggendorf MJ.
    Journal: J Endod; 2011 Nov; 37(11):1558-61. PubMed ID: 22000463.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: 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. METHODS: 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. RESULTS: 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. CONCLUSIONS: 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.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]