Cargando…

Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the push-out bond strength of resin composite posts to the intracanal dentin in primary teeth using different adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, sixty-eight primary lateral incisors were randomly allocated in four groups (n = 17): Ad...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bahrololoomi, Zahra, Mehravar, Fateme
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1968781
_version_ 1784783220828536832
author Bahrololoomi, Zahra
Mehravar, Fateme
author_facet Bahrololoomi, Zahra
Mehravar, Fateme
author_sort Bahrololoomi, Zahra
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the push-out bond strength of resin composite posts to the intracanal dentin in primary teeth using different adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, sixty-eight primary lateral incisors were randomly allocated in four groups (n = 17): Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB), Clearfil SE Bond 2 (CSE), G-Premio Bond in etch-and-rinse mode (GP-ER), and G-Premio Bond in the self-etch mode (GP-SE). The coronal one third of root canals was filled with resin composite. The push-out test was performed using a universal testing machine. ANOVA and LSD tests were used to analyze the data (P < 0.05). RESULTS: One-way ANOVA showed significant differences between the four groups in push-out bond strength (P = 0.002). The ASB and GP-SE groups showed lower and higher bond strengths, respectively. The failure mode distribution did not differ between the bonding agents used (P = 0.763). Adhesive and mixed failures were more frequent. CONCLUSION: The GP-SE, GP-ER, and CSE exhibited significantly higher push-out bond strength than ASB. A universal adhesive system and 6th generation self-etch adhesives are recommended for use with resin composite posts in primary anterior teeth. Regarding the advantages of these bonding agents, such as fewer clinical steps, lower technical sensitivity, and easy application, they can be a good option for restoring primary teeth with short resin composite posts.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9444449
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94444492022-09-06 Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth Bahrololoomi, Zahra Mehravar, Fateme Int J Dent Research Article BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the push-out bond strength of resin composite posts to the intracanal dentin in primary teeth using different adhesive systems. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this experimental study, sixty-eight primary lateral incisors were randomly allocated in four groups (n = 17): Adper Single Bond 2 (ASB), Clearfil SE Bond 2 (CSE), G-Premio Bond in etch-and-rinse mode (GP-ER), and G-Premio Bond in the self-etch mode (GP-SE). The coronal one third of root canals was filled with resin composite. The push-out test was performed using a universal testing machine. ANOVA and LSD tests were used to analyze the data (P < 0.05). RESULTS: One-way ANOVA showed significant differences between the four groups in push-out bond strength (P = 0.002). The ASB and GP-SE groups showed lower and higher bond strengths, respectively. The failure mode distribution did not differ between the bonding agents used (P = 0.763). Adhesive and mixed failures were more frequent. CONCLUSION: The GP-SE, GP-ER, and CSE exhibited significantly higher push-out bond strength than ASB. A universal adhesive system and 6th generation self-etch adhesives are recommended for use with resin composite posts in primary anterior teeth. Regarding the advantages of these bonding agents, such as fewer clinical steps, lower technical sensitivity, and easy application, they can be a good option for restoring primary teeth with short resin composite posts. Hindawi 2022-08-29 /pmc/articles/PMC9444449/ /pubmed/36072557 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1968781 Text en Copyright © 2022 Zahra Bahrololoomi and Fateme Mehravar. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Bahrololoomi, Zahra
Mehravar, Fateme
Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title_full Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title_fullStr Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title_short Comparison of Different Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Resin Composite Posts Placed in Primary Teeth
title_sort comparison of different adhesive systems on bond strength of resin composite posts placed in primary teeth
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9444449/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36072557
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/1968781
work_keys_str_mv AT bahrololoomizahra comparisonofdifferentadhesivesystemsonbondstrengthofresincompositepostsplacedinprimaryteeth
AT mehravarfateme comparisonofdifferentadhesivesystemsonbondstrengthofresincompositepostsplacedinprimaryteeth