Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/1807-2577.18615
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Análise comparativa da resistência de união de um cimento convencional e um cimento autoadesivo após diferentes tratamentos na superfície de pinos de fibra de vidro

Bond strength comparative analysis of a conventional cement with a self-adhesive cement after different treatments on the fiberglass post surface

Marques, Juliana das Neves; Gonzalez, Carolina Brum; Silva, Eduardo Moreira da; Pereira, Gisele Damiana da Silveira; Simão, Renata Antoun; Prado, Maíra do

Downloads: 0
Views: 626

Resumo

Introdução: Os pinos de fibra de vidro são uma alternativa aos núcleos metálicos e apresentam vantagens, tais como: estética, módulo de elasticidade semelhante à dentina e cimentação imediata após o término do tratamento endodôntico. Ainda, apresentam a capacidade de aderir ao cimento resinoso e este, à dentina, por meio de técnicas adesivas. Objetivo: Comparar a adesão de um cimento resinoso convencional e um autoadesivo a pinos de fibra de vidro, e os efeitos de diferentes tratamentos de superfície na resistência adesiva dos pinos. Material e método: Trinta pinos foram divididos em três grupos: Controle: sem tratamento na superfície; Jateamento: jateamento com óxido de alumínio por 30 segundos, e Peróxido: imersão em peróxido de hidrogênio 24% por um minuto. Em seguida, corpos de prova foram obtidos a partir de cilindros de cimento resinoso contendo o pino de fibra posicionado no centro de seu longo eixo. Em cada grupo, cinco pinos foram associados ao adesivo Âmbar + cimento convencional AllCem Core e os outros cinco pinos, ao cimento autoadesivo RelyX U200. O conjunto pino/cimento foi segmentado e avaliado em relação à resistência de união (RU) por push-out. Os dados foram analisados estatisticamente pelos testes de ANOVA e Tukey (p<0,05). Resultado: Os cimentos avaliados exibiram valores de RU semelhantes. Em relação aos tratamentos de superfície, os maiores valores de RU foram encontrados no grupo Jateamento. Conclusão: O cimento convencional, AllCem Core, e o cimento autoadesivo, RelyX U200, mostraram valores de resistência de união semelhantes. Ainda, o jateamento com óxido de alumínio favoreceu a adesão dos pinos aos cimentos.

Palavras-chave

Cimentos dentários, jateamento, pinos dentários, técnica para retentor intrarradicular, adesão dental.

Abstract

Introduction: The fiberglass posts are an alternative to the metal cast, presenting some advantages, such as aesthetics, tensile modulus similar to dentin and can be placed in a single session, immediately after the endodontic treatment. It also has the ability to adhere to the resin cement and the last to dentin by means of bonding techniques. Objective: To compare the adhesion of a conventional resin cement with a self-adhesive to fiberglass posts, and the effects of different surface treatments on adhesion of posts. Material and method: Thirty fiber posts were divided into 3 groups: control: untreated surface; Blasting: blasting with aluminum oxide for 30 seconds and peroxide: immersion in 24% hydrogen peroxide for 1 minute. Then, the samples were obtained from resin cement cylinders containing the fiber post positioned in the center of its long axis. In each group 5 posts were associated with the adhesive Ambar+conventional cement Allcem Core and the other 5 posts with the self-adhesive cement RelyX U200. The post/cement sample was segment in discs and evaluated for bond strength (BS) by push-out test. Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey tests (p<0.05). Result: The cements evaluated exhibited similar BS values. Regarding surface treatments, the highest BS values were found in blasting group. Conclusion: Conventional cement, Allcem Core, and self-adhesive, RelyX U200, showed similar bond strength values. Also, blasting with aluminum oxide favored the adhesion of posts to cements.

Keywords

Dental cements, air abrasion, dental pins, post and core technique, dental bonding.

References

1. Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1994 Jun;10(3):105-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1994.tb00533.x. PMid:7995237.

2. Schwartz RS, Fransman R. Adhesive dentistry and endodontics: materials, clinical strategies and procedures for restoration of access cavities: a review. J Endod. 2005 Mar;31(3):151-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000155222.49442.a1. PMid:15735460.

3. Costa Dantas MC, Prado M, Costa VS, Gaiotte M, Simão RA, Bastian FL. Comparison between the effect of plasma and chemical treatments on fiber post surface. J Endod. 2012 Feb;38(2):215-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.020. PMid:22244639.

4. Cecchin D, de Almeida JF, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Ferraz CC. Effect of chlorhexidine and ethanol on the durability of the adhesion of the fiber post relined with resin composite to the root canal. J Endod. 2011 May;37(5):678-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.01.007. PMid:21496670.

5. Skupien JA, Sarkis-Onofre R, Cenci MS, Moraes RR, Pereira-Cenci T. A systematic review of factors associated with the retention of glass fiber posts. Braz Oral Res. 2015;29(1):S1806-83242015000100401. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0074. PMid:26083089.

6. Tanoue N, Koishi Y, Atsuta M, Matsumura H. Properties of dual-curable luting composites polymerized with single and dual curing modes. J Oral Rehabil. 2003 Oct;30(10):1015-21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2003.01074.x. PMid:12974862.

7. Viotti RG, Kasaz A, Pena CE, Alexandre RS, Arrais CA, Reis AF. Microtensile bond strength of new self-adhesive luting agents and conventional multistep systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2009 Nov;102(5):306-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60180-3. PMid:19853172.

8. Ferreira RS, Andreiuolo RF, Mota CS, Dias KRHC, Miranda MS. Cimentação adesiva de pinos fibrorreforçados. Rev Bras Odontol. 2012 Jul-Dec;69(2):194-8.

9. Weiser F, Behr M. Self-adhesive resin cements: a clinical review. J Prosthodont. 2015 Feb;24(2):100-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jopr.12192. PMid:25041496.

10. D’Arcangelo C, D’Amario M, Vadini M, De Angelis F, Caputi S. Influence of surface treatments on the flexural properties of fiber posts. J Endod. 2007 Jul;33(7):864-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.004. PMid:17804331.

11. De Munck J, Vargas M, Van Landuyt K, Hikita K, Lambrechts P, Van Meerbeek B. Bonding of an auto-adhesive luting material to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater. 2004 Dec;20(10):963-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.002. PMid:15501325.

12. Monticelli F, Osorio R, Sadek FT, Radovic I, Toledano M, Ferrari M. Surface treatments for improving bond strength to prefabricated fiber posts: a literature review. Oper Dent. 2008 May-Jun;33(3):346-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2341/07-86. PMid:18505227.

13. Menezes MS, Queiroz EC, Soares PV, Faria-e-Silva AL, Soares CJ, Martins LR. Fiber post etching with hydrogen peroxide: effect of concentration and application time. J Endod. 2011 Mar;37(3):398-402. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.11.037. PMid:21329829.

14. Naves LZ, Santana FR, Castro CG, Valdivia AD, Da Mota AS, Estrela C, et al. Surface treatment of glass fiber and carbon fiber posts: SEM characterization. Microsc Res Tech. 2011 Dec;74(12):1088-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jemt.20999. PMid:21538694.

15. Elsaka SE. Influence of chemical surface treatments on adhesion of fiber posts to composite resin core materials. Dent Mater. 2013 May;29(5):550-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.03.004. PMid:23518246.

16. Liu C, Liu H, Qian YT, Zhu S, Zhao SQ. The influence of four dual-cure resin cements and surface treatment selection to bond strength of fiber post. Int J Oral Sci. 2014 Mar;6(1):56-60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/ijos.2013.83. PMid:24177170.

17. Yavirach P, Chaijareenont P, Boonyawan D, Pattamapun K, Tunma S, Takahashi H, et al. Effects of plasma treatment on the shear bond strength between fiber-reinforced composite posts and resin composite for core build-up. Dent Mater J. 2009 Nov;28(6):686-92. http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.28.686. PMid:20019419.

18. Turp V, Sen D, Tuncelli B, Özcan M. Adhesion of 10-MDP containing resin cements to dentin with and without the etch-and-rinse technique. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013 Aug;5(3):226-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jap.2013.5.3.226. PMid:24049562.

19. Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Yoshida Y, Inoue S, Vargas M, Vijay P, et al. Buonocore memorial lecture: adhesion to enamel and dentin: current status and future challenges. Oper Dent. 2003 May-Jun;28(3):215-35. PMid:12760693.

20. Van Landuyt KL, Yoshida Y, Hirata I, Snauwaert J, De Munck J, Okazaki M, et al. Influence of the chemical structure of functional monomers on their adhesive performance. J Dent Res. 2008 Aug;87(8):757-61. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/154405910808700804. PMid:18650548.

21. Sarr M, Mine A, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Kane AW, Vreven J, et al. Immediate bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin. Clin Oral Investig. 2010 Oct;14(5):569-77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-009-0327-8. PMid:19705169.

22. Han L, Okamoto A, Fukushima M, Okiji T. Evaluation of physical properties and surface degradation of self-adhesive resin cements. Dent Mater J. 2007 Nov;26(6):906-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.906. PMid:18203498.

23. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Retention and failure morphology of prefabricated posts. Int J Prosthodont. 2004 May-Jun;17(3):307-12. PMid:15237877.

24. 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 Jun;35(6):496-502. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2007.01.009. PMid:17374430.

588019e27f8c9d0a098b53a2 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections