Conventional dual-cure versus self-adhesive resin cements in dentin bond integrity

Renata Andreza Talaveira Da Silva,Margareth Coutinho,Larissa Alves Da Silva,Pedro Igor Cardozo,José Roberto Zorzatto

doi:10.1590/s1678-77572011005000010

Renata Andreza Talaveira Da Silva, Margareth Coutinho + Show 3 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1590/s1678-77572011005000010

Copy DOI

Abstract

During post preparation, the root canal is exposed to the oral cavity, and endodontic treatment may fail because of coronal leakage, bacterial infection and sealing inability of the luting cement.Objectivethis study quantified the interfacial continuity produced with conventional dual-cure and self-adhesive resin cements in the cervical (C), medium (M) and apical (A) thirds of the root. Material and methodsForty single-rooted human teeth were restored using Reforpost # 01 conical glass-fiber posts and different materials (N=10 per group): group AC=Adper™ ScotchBond™ Multi-purpose Plus + AllCem; group ARC=Adper™ ScotchBond™ Multi-purpose Plus + RelyX ARC; group U100=RelyX U100; and group MXC=Maxcem Elite. After being kept in 100% humidity at 37ºC for 72 hours, the samples were sectioned parallel to their longitudinal axis and positive epoxy resin replicas were made. The scanning electron micrographs of each third section of the teeth were combined using Image Analyst software and measured with AutoCAD-2002. We obtained percentage values of the interfacial continuity. ResultsInterfacial continuity was similar in the apical, medium and cervical thirds of the roots within the groups (Friedman test, p>0.05). Comparison of the different cements in a same root third showed that interfacial continuity was lower in MXC (C=45.5%; M=48.5%; A=47.3%) than in AC (C=85.9%, M=81.8% and A=76.0%), ARC (C=83.8%, M=82.4% and A=75.0%) and U100 (C=84.1%, M=82.4% and A=77.3%) (Kruskal-Wallis test, p<0.05). ConclusionsAllcem, Rely X ARC and U100 provide the best cementation; cementation was similar among root portions; in practical terms, U100 is the best resin because it combines good cementation and easy application and none of the cements provides complete interfacial continuity.

Highlights

After the development of fiber-reinforced composite posts, adhesive resin cement systems are a good option for restoring endodontically treated teeth
Conventional dual-cure resin cements are indicated for luting procedures because they have low solubility, high mechanical quality and adhesive properties19
&RUURERUDWLQJ WKH ¿UVW K\SRWKHVLV RI WKH SUHVHQW study, both the dual-cure resin cements tested in vitro produced a more continuous interface than the self-adhesive Maxcem, which formed a discontinuous interface with many gaps

Summary

Introduction

After the development of fiber-reinforced composite posts, adhesive resin cement systems are a good option for restoring endodontically treated teeth. $ FRPSOHWH ¿OOLQJ RI WKH URRW FDQDO LV H[SHFWHG WR form a monoblock, a solid mass without gaps that seals the root perfectly and remains stable in the oral environment. $ FRPSOHWH ¿OOLQJ RI WKH URRW FDQDO LV H[SHFWHG WR form a monoblock, a solid mass without gaps that seals the root perfectly and remains stable in the oral environment22 According to this concept, the monoblock is strong enough to support mastication and dissipates resistance capacity throughout the remaining tooth structure. The monoblock is strong enough to support mastication and dissipates resistance capacity throughout the remaining tooth structure25 This is theoretical, and currently available adhesives do not provide a hermetic, leak proof seal. Conventional dual-cure resin cements are indicated for luting procedures because they have low solubility, high mechanical quality and adhesive properties. The characteristics of the dual-cure cements are independent and complementary to

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion