Abstract
This ex vivo study aimed to compare the microtensile bond strength of fiber-reinforced and particulate filler composite to coronal and pulp chamber floor dentin using a self-etching adhesive system. Coronal dentin of 40 human molar teeth was exposed by cutting occlusal enamel with a low-speed saw. Teeth were then randomly divided into two groups (n = 20). The first group was left as is, while in the second group, pulp chamber floor dentin was exposed by trepanation. After placement of a self-etching adhesive system (G-aenial Bond, GC, Tokyo, Japan), groups were further divided into two sub-groups (n = 10) according to the type of composite: fiber-reinforced composite (EP, everX Posterior, GC, Tokyo, Japan) and particulate filler composite (GP, G-aenial Posterior, GC, Tokyo, Japan). Then, composite blocks were built up. Sticks (1.0 × 1.0 mm2) were obtained from each specimen by sectioning, then microtensile bond strength (μTBS) test was performed. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA test and Student’s t-test (p < 0.05). μTBS values were 22.91 ± 14.66 and 24.44 ± 13.72 MPa on coronal dentin, 14.00 ± 5.83 and 12.10 ± 8.89 MPa on pulp chamber floor dentin for EP and GP, respectively. Coronal dentin yielded significantly higher μTBS than pulp chamber floor dentin (p < 0.05), independently from the tested composites.
Highlights
Reduced coronal and radicular residual tissues due to caries, previous restorations, and tissue removal during access cavity and root canal preparation make the restoration of endodontically treated teeth challenging [1,2,3]
Two-way ANOVA did not show a significant interaction between factors (Table 2), meaning that the tested types of composites had the same behavior on both tested dentin substrates
The present ex vivo study showed that the microtensile bond strength values were significantly higher for coronal dentin than pulp chamber floor dentin for both tested composite resin materials
Summary
Reduced coronal and radicular residual tissues due to caries, previous restorations, and tissue removal during access cavity and root canal preparation make the restoration of endodontically treated teeth challenging [1,2,3]. In addition to specific morphological characteristics, adhesion to pulp chamber dentin may be affected by the use of irrigants, most often sodium hypochlorite and EDTA Such treatments alter the dentin’s organic and mineral content and influence the interaction with the adhesive materials used for coronal sealing. Glass fiber-reinforced composite substructure may aid in eliminating crack propagation and root fractures [11] Another two studies showed that fiber-reinforced composite provided endodontically treated teeth with superior fracture resistance [12,13]. The placement of larger increments of composite material and shorting the clinical procedure is tempting alternative especially when restoring endodontically treated teeth and according to scientific data the effectiveness of bulk composite materials is comparable to conventional resin composites [14,15]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
