The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 9 , ISSUE 4 ( May, 2008 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Resin Bonding to Root Canal Dentin: Effect of the Application of an Experimental Hydrophobic Resin Coating after an All-in-one Adhesive

Marco Antonio Bottino, Geraido H. L. Lombardo, Rodrigo O. A. Souza, Silvia M. A Michida, Renata Marques de Melo, Luiz Felipe Valendro

Citation Information : Bottino MA, Lombardo GH, Souza RO, Michida SM, de Melo RM, Valendro LF. Resin Bonding to Root Canal Dentin: Effect of the Application of an Experimental Hydrophobic Resin Coating after an All-in-one Adhesive. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008; 9 (4):34-42.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-9-4-34

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-05-2008

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2008; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

Based on the hypothesis the application of a low-viscosity hydrophobic resin coating improves the bond of all-in-one adhesive, the purpose of the study was to evaluate the bond strength of four adhesive systems to bovine root dentin using the push-out test method.

Methods and Materials

The root canals of 32 bovine roots (16 mm) were prepared to a length of 12 mm using a FRC Postec Plus preparation drill. The specimens were allocated into four groups according to the adhesive system used: (Group 1) All-in-one Xeno III; (Group 2) All-in-one Xeno III+ScotchBond Multi-Purpose Plus Adhesive; (Group 3) Simplified Etch & Rinse One Step Plus; and (Group 4) Multi-Bottle Etch & Rinse All- Bond 2. A fiber-reinforced composite retention post was reproduced using an additional silicon impression and fabricated with DuoLink resin cement. The root specimens were treated with the selected adhesive systems, and the resin posts were luted in the canals with DuoLink resin cement. Each root specimen was cross sectioned into four samples (±1.8 mm in thickness), and the post sections were pushed-out to determine the bond strength to dentin.

Results

Group 2 (2.9±1.2) was statistically higher than Group 1 (1.1±0.5) and Group 3 (1.1±0.5). Groups 1 and 3 showed no statistically significant difference while Group 4 (2.0±0.7) presented similar values (p>0.05) to Groups 1, 2, and 3 [(one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA)] and Tukey test, α=0.05).

Conclusion

The hypothesis was accepted since the application of the additional layer of a low-viscosity bonding resin improved the bond of the all-in-one adhesive. Further studies must be conducted to evaluate the long-term bond.

Citation

Lombardo GHL, Souza ROA, Michida SMA, de Melo RM, Bottino MA, Valandro LF. Resin Bonding to Root Canal Dentin: Effect of the Application of an Experimental Hydrophobic Resin Coating after an All-in-one Adhesive. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008 May; (9)4:034-042.


PDF Share
  1. “No-bottle” vs “multi-bottle” dentin adhesives–a microtensile bond strength and morphological study. Dent Mater. 2001, Sep;17:373-80.
  2. Conversion of one-step to two-step self-etch adhesives for improved efficacy and extended application. Am J Dent. 2005, Apr;18(2):126-34.
  3. The effect of adhesive systems on the pull-out strength of a fiber glass-reinforced composite post system in bovine teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2005, Winter;7(4):331-3.
  4. Self-etching bonding systems: in-vitro shear bond strength evaluation. SADJ. 2006, Feb;61(1):16-7.
  5. Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? J Adhes Dent. 2006, Apr;8(2):75-83.
  6. Factors affecting the fracture resistance of post-core reconstructed teeth: a review. Int J Prosthodont. 2001, Jul-Aug;14(4):355-63.
  7. Intermittent Loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent. 1999, Summer;1(2):153-8.
  8. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent. 2002, Apr;87(4):431-7.
  9. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three different prefabricated esthetic posts. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2003;15(1):25-30.
  10. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater. 2004, Jan;20(1):29-36.
  11. Clinical evaluation of teeth restored with quartz fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. Int J Prosthodont. 2003, Jan-Feb;16(1):39-44.
  12. Clinical behavior of translucent fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont. 2003, Nov-Dec;16(6):593-6.
  13. Influence of microbrush on efficacy of bonding into root canals. Am J Dent. 2002, Aug;15(4):227-31.
  14. Utilizzo di adesivi e composite fotopolimerizzanti nella cementazione di perni translucenti: analisi al SEM e Pull-out test. Minerva Stomatol. 2003, Apr;42(4):133-44.
  15. Density of dentinal tubules affects the tensile strength of root dentin. Dent Mater. 2004, Mar; 20(3):293-6
  16. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopy study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004, Mar; 97(3):381-7
  17. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater. 2003, May; 19(3):199-205
  18. Microtensile bond strength of light- and self-cured adhesive systems to intraradicular dentin using a translucent fiber post. Oper Dent. 2005, Jul- Aug;30(4):500-6.
  19. Friction to the dislocation resistance of bonded fiber posts. J Endod. 2005, Aug; 3(8):608-12.
  20. Depth of light initiated polymerization of glass fiber reinforced composite in a simulated root canal. Int J Prosthodont. 2003, Jul-Aug;16(4):403-8.
  21. Adhesive permeability affects coupling of resin cements that utilize self-etching primers to dentine. J Dent. 2004, Jan; 32(1):55-65.
  22. Incompatibility of self-etch adhesives with chemical/dual-cured composites: two-step vs one-step systems. Oper Dent. 2003, Nov-Dec;28(6):747-55.
  23. Adverse surface interactions between one-bottle light-cured adhesives and chemical-cured composites. Dent Mater. 2001, Nov; 17(6):542-56.
  24. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplifiedstep adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part III. Effect of acidic resin monomers. J Adhes Dent. 2003, Winter; 5(4):267-82.
  25. Water movement across bonded dentin - too much of a good thing. J Appl Oral Sci. 2004; 12(sp. issue):12-25.
  26. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and chemically-cured or dual-cured composites. Part I. Singlestep self-etching adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 2003, Spring; 5(1):27-40
  27. Factors contributing to the incompatibility between simplified-step adhesives and self-cured or dual-cured composites. Part II. Single-bottle, total-etch adhesive. J Adhes Dent. 2003, Summer; 5(2):91-105.
  28. Comparative study of the dental substrate used in shear bond strength tests. Braz Dent Res. 2003, Apr-Jun;17(2):171-5.
  29. Influence of different dentinal substrates on the tensile bond strength of three adhesive systems. J Adhes Dent. 2000, Autumn; 2(3):209-12.
  30. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res. 1983, Oct; 62(10):1076-81.
  31. Comparison of microtensile bond strength to enamel and dentin of human, bovine, and porcine teeth. J Adhes Dent. 2004, Summer; 6(2):117-21.
  32. Lubrication of human and bovine enamel compared in an artificial mouth. Arch Oral Biol. 1995, Nov; 40(11):1063-72.
  33. Extracted human versus bovine teeth in laboratory studies. Am J Dent. 1990, Dec; 3(6):253-8.
  34. Bovine dentin as a substitute for human dentin in shear bond strength measurements. Am J Dent. 1999, Apr; 12(2):92-6.
  35. Bond strengths to endodontically-treated teeth. Am J Dent. 1999, Aug; 12(4):177-80.
  36. Effects of restorative and adhesive curing methods on dentin bond strengths. Am J Dent. 2001, June; 14(3):137-40.
  37. Influence of environmental conditions on dentin bond strengths of one-application adhesive systems. Oper Dent. 2004, Sep-Oct;29(5):554-9.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.