[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, June 08, 2016, IP: 202.67.37.

35]

Original Article

Effect of different bonding techniques

on the bond strength of two different
fiber posts
Kanad Pala, Sezer Demirbua, Hasan nder Gm1, Soley Arslan, Yahya Orun Zorba
Departments of Restorative Dentistry and 1Prostodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Address for correspondence: Dr.Yahya Orcun Zorba, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Email:orcunzorba@yahoo.com

ABSTRACT

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of three different bonding techniques on the bond
strength of two different fiber posts to root dentin with push out test. Materials and Methods: Atotal
of 30 extracted teeth were sectioned at the cementenamel junction using a diamond disc under
watercoolant to obtain 18mm root length. All roots were treated endodontically and filled with sealer
and Guttapercha points. The roots were randomly divided into two groups according to chosen
post systems(Rebilda DC[VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany] or UniCore[Ultradent, South Jordan, UT]).
Following preparation specimens were randomly divided into three subgroups of 3 teeth each. Luting of
the posts were completed with Rebilda DC(selfetch); BisCem(selfadhesive, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL)
DuoLink(etch and rinse Bisco). Specimens were transversally sectioned into 20.05mm thick discs
and pushout test was performed. The data was analyzed statistically by using threeway ANOVA and
Tukey tests. Results: The bond strengths between fiber posts and root dentin were affected by type of
resin cement and post(P<0.05). Push out bond strengths of Rebilda groups was lower than UniCore
groups(P<0.05). Push out bond strength of DuoLink and Rebilda DC cement groups were higher
than BisCem groups. There were no statistically differences between root region. Conclusion: It can
be concluded that, bond strength between fiber post and root dentin affected by the using of different
post and cement types. Selfadhesion techniques were showed lower bond strength than both selfetch
and etch and rinse techniques

Keywords: Adhesive cements, bonding techniques, fiber post, pushout bond strength

INTRODUCTION
It is suggested that, failure in root canal treatment is close
related to final restoration. Final restoration; must seal
the access cavity effectively that microorganisms cannot
enter the coronally, preserve radicular and coronal tooth
tissues and final restoration must seem to be esthetic.[1]
Access this article online
Quick Response Code:

Website:

www.jresdent.org

DOI:

10.4103/2321-4619.129019

32 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 2 / Issue - 1 / Jan-Apr 2014

In general, the remaining coronal tooth tissue at

endodontically treated teeth is poor for a core restoration
without using a post. Due to increasing demand for the
esthetic restorations, clinicians may use fiber posts in a
single visit, for the advantages of corrosion resistance,
esthetic appearance.[2] Previous studies concluded that,
both fiber posts had similar elasticity modulus of sound
root dentin and might distribute occlusal stresses more
evenly in the root dentin.[1,3,4]
Adhesive resin cements, which have an more closely
match the elastic modulus with both the post and
dentin, are commonly preferred to lute the post into
root canal.[5] Selecting a correct luting procedure and
adhesive technique for bonding posts to root dentine is a
demanding issue. Previous studies have showed that the

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, June 08, 2016, IP: 202.67.37.35]
Pala, etal.: Effects of different bonding techniques on fiber post bond strength

most common failure reason of the fiber post adhesion

was caused by debonding between fiber post and resin
cement or between resin cement and root canal walls.[6,7]
Luting with resin cements can be divided into three
subgroups regarding to adhesion techniques used, which
etch and rinse, selfetch and selfadhesive systems.[8]
There were a lot of studies about the bonding effectiveness
of different luting agent.[1,9] A previous study reported
that, pushout bond strength of fiber post was affected
numerous factors, such as; light transmitting into the post
space, high polymerization shrinkage stress, anatomical
differences between coronal and root dentin, the weak
bond strength between ber post and composites.[10]
Some studies showed no differences between the used
luting techniques systems whilst others suggest etch and
rinse techniques have a superiority than selfetch and
selfadhesive techniques.[9] Furthermore in a different
study, etch and rinse adhesives was showed significantly
lower microleakage at the cement root dentin interface,
than selfetching primer when used for fiber post
cementation.[11]
A further improvement of reduction of working steps is
introduction of selfadhesive cements. Selfadhesive
cements are do not require pretreatment of tooth substrates
and posts. Selfadhesive cements can both infiltrate tooth
substrate, which results micromechanical retention and
offer chemical adhesion like glassionomers.[12]
Both selfetching and selfadhesive approaches provide
simplicity and reduction in chair sidetime. Although,
there is no clarification about which ber post luting
method might be most useful. Therefore, the aim of
this study was to investigate the effect of three different
bonding techniques (etchandrinse, selfetch and
selfadhesive) on the bond strength of two different
fiber posts to root dentin with push out test.[8] The tested
hypothesis was; both type of adhesive cements and posts
do not affect bonding strength to dentin.

1.25% NaOCl solution was used for irrigation after

every change of instrument and lubricant (Glyde File
Prep; Dentsply, MontignyleBretonneux, France) was
used throughout the shaping and cleaning of the root
canal. Shaping was completed with a size F3 file at the
working length. Finally, the canals were rinsed with 17%
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid and distilled water for
removing the smear layer and dried with paper points.
The roots were filled with sealer(MMSeal, Micro Mega,
Besancon, France) and Guttapercha points (Diadent
GuttaPercha Points, DiaDent Group International,
Chongju, Korea) by using the cold lateral condensation
technique with a finger spreader(MANI, Tochigi, Japan).
After root canal treatment was completed, roots were
stored at 100% humidity at 37C(EN 032, Nve, stanbul,
Turkey) for 7days to allow the sealer to set.
The roots randomly divided into two groups regarding to
post systems(Rebilda DC[VOCO, Cuxhaven, Germany]
or UniCore [Ultradent, South Jordan, UT]). The post
holes were prepared with their own drills Rebilda DC
or UniCore, up to a fixed depth of 12 mm [Figure 1].
1.25% NaOCl solution was used after preparation
of the root canals and distilled water was used for
final flushing. The canals were dried with paper
points. The samples were randomly divided into three
subgroups of 3 teeth each. Luting of the posts were
completed with Rebilda DC(selfetch) in group1 and 4;
BisCem(selfadhesive, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL) in group2
and 5 and DuoLink(etch and rinse Bisco) in group 3 and 6,
according to the manufacturers instructions.
Lowspeed diamond saw (Micracut, Metkon, Bursa,
Turkey) was used for sectioning of root from the coronal to
the apical direction, which was perpendicularly to the axis
of the root. Six slices, each 2.0mm thick, were obtained
from each root, as described previously[Figure2].[13,14] The
coronal two slices were deemed to represent the coronal
region of the root and the apical two slices were deemed
to represent the apical region of the root[Figure1].

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 30 freshly extracted teeth with a single and round
root segment were selected for this study. Each tooth was
placed in 5.25% of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) for
2h for surface disinfection and then stored in distilled
water. The crown of each tooth was sectioned at the
cementenamel junction using a diamond disc under
watercoolant to achieve 18mm root length. The working
length was determined visually by subtracting 1mm from
the length of a size 10 file(KFiles Limas K; MANI, Tochigi,
Japan) at the apical foramen. Root canals were prepared
using the ProTaper (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany)
system to manufacturer recommendation. Nearly

Figure 1: Root canal preparation

Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 2 / Issue - 1 / Jan-Apr 2014 33

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, June 08, 2016, IP: 202.67.37.35]
Pala, etal.: Effects of different bonding techniques on fiber post bond strength

The slice was then fixed on the metal support of a universal

testing machine (Instron Canton, MA, USA) with the
apical aspect facing a cylindrical plunger of 0.65mm
diameter[Figure2]. Loading was performed at a crosshead
speed of 0.1 mm/min until bond failure occurred. The
pushout strength was finally calculated in MPa by
dividing the load at debonding(N) by the area(mm2).[15]
The failure types were determined using a stereomicroscope
(Olympus SZ 6045 TR Zoom stereomicroscope, Olympus
Optical Co., Tokyo, Japan) at original magnification40,
after testing the pushout bond strengths. The type of
failure was classified into the following 4 categories:(1)
Adhesive failure between dentin and luting material,(2)
adhesive failure between post and luting material, (3)
cohesive failure of the post system(4) and mixed type, a
combination of 2 of the aforementioned types.
KolmogorovSmirnov test was used for determination
of the values distribution. The data were analyzed
using threeway analysis of variance(ANOVA). Post hoc
multiple comparisons were performed using the Tukey
test. The failure mode data were analyzed using the
Chisquare test. In all the tests, the level of significance
was set at (P < 0.05) and calculations were completed
using SPSS, version11.0(SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA).

Scanning electron microscopy analysis

Two specimens were randomly selected from each

subgroup for SEM examination of the post space.
Following dislocation of post, in order to qualitatively
assess the cleanliness of the post space the roots were
split along the axis in the linguobuccal direction using
a chisel and a hammer to expose the entire extent of
the root canal. The exposed root canals were immersed
in 90% alcohol, airdried, mounted on a metallic stub,
goldsputtered (Polaron Range SC7620, Quorum
Technology, Newhaven, UK) and observed under a
SEM (SEM, JSM5600, JEOL Ltd., Tokyo, Japan) at
different magnifications.

RESULTS
None of the prepared specimens failed prematurely. The
mean (standard deviation) pushout bond strength for
each luting strategy(and statistically significant differences),
curing techniques, the root region are indicated in Table1.
The results showed that bond strengths of fiber posts were
affected by the type of post and the resin cement(P<0.05).
Push out bond strengths of UniCore groups were higher
than Rebilda groups(P<0.05). Push out bond strength
of BisCem cement groups was lower than DuoLink
and Rebilda DC groups. There were no statistically
significant differences between DuoLink cement and
Rebilda DC cement groups(P<0.05)[Table1]. There are
no statistically differences between apical and coronal
groups[Table1]. In this study, Unicore(post) and Rebilda
DC(cement) groups show best results.
The distribution of failure modes is reported in Figure 3.
There were no statistical significant differences found in
failure modes except coronal and apical region of Unicore
post with luted BisCem resin cement[Figure 3].
SEM analyses revealed that there were more opened
dentinal tubules at etch and rinse adhesives. Furthermore,
Table1: Push out bond strengths of UniCore and Rebilda
groups
Post
type

Root
region

Luting agent
Rebilda DCB
BisCemA
DuolinkA
(selfetch)
(self adhesive) (ethc and rinse)
Unicore# Apical 28.09(20.52)a,b 2.33(1.69)d
34.09(27.15)a
Coronal 26.26(18.39)a,b,c 8.10(3.19)c,d 32.27(18.16)a
Rebillda Apical
9.11(6.91)b,c,d
4.48(3.33)d
4.13(2.71)d
Coronal 6.55(4.58)d
3.60(2.52)d
5.72(4.43)d
Values are meanSD in MPa. Superscript letters represent significant differences with regard
factor root region (P<0.05). Symbols represent significant differences with regard to the factor
post systems (P<0.05). Capital letters represent significant differences with regard factor
luting agent (P<0.05)





0L[
.RKH]LY
$GKH]LY



Figure2: Root cut into discs and pushout test

34 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 2 / Issue - 1 / Jan-Apr 2014

8QLFRUH3RVW

5HELOGD3RVW

'XROLQN&HPHQW

%LVFHP&HPHQW

5HELOGD'&&HPHQW

$SLFDO

&RURQDO



Figure 3: Failure mode distribution in the experimental groups

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, June 08, 2016, IP: 202.67.37.35]
Pala, etal.: Effects of different bonding techniques on fiber post bond strength

both of tested adhesive had higher resin tags at coronal

region than apical region. Figure4 shows the SEM images.

DISCUSSION
The null hypothesis, that there are both type of adhesive
cements and posts do not affect bonding strength to
dentin was rejected. Two main groups and three sub
groups (totally six groups) tested showed noticeable
adhesive properties. In this study, Unicore post and
Rebilda DC cement combination showed best pushout
bond strength result and Unicore posts showed better
results than Rebilda posts. The push out bond strength
of selfadhesive cements was lower than other two
adhesion techniques results. On the other hand, there
were no statistically significant differences between etch
and rinse and selfetch cement groups.
The pushout test is based on the shear bond stress
at the interface between cement and dentin as well
as between cement and post, which is comparable to
the stresses under clinical conditions.[16,17] Obtaining
for better estimation of the dislocation resistance than
the conventional shear bond test pushout test was
recommended, due to parallel occurrence of the fracture
to the dentinebonding interface.[15]
There is a lot of post brand in dental marketing. In a
previous laboratory study, Kurtz etal.[18] claimed that,

Figure 4: Morphological aspects of interradicular dentin at different

magnifications (a: Duo-link coronal, b: Duo-link apical, c: Rebilda
coronal, d: Rebilda apical, e: Bis-Cem coronal, f: Bis-Cem apical)

the type of fiber post can affect pushout bond strength

to a greater extent than the luting agent. In addition,
Farina etal.[14] concluded that bond strength of fiber
post significantly affected by the post and cement used.
In the present study, Unicore showed higher bond
strength than Rebilda groups, which was in agreement
with previous studies. However, review of clinical
followups Cagidiaco etal.[6] showed that, although
fiber posts have better performance than metal posts,
there were no statistical differences of survival rate of
fiber posts.
Previous studies showed that bond strength of fiber post
can influence from root regions.[1921] These studies were
founded that bond strength at apical third was lower
than coronal third of root canal and they claimed this
might occurred both lack of micromechanical bonding
and difficulty of cementing agent flow in apical region
of post. In our study, although there were differences in
bond strength between coronal and apical region, this
differences was not statistically significant.
Adhesion to dentin may influenced by many factors.
However, bonding into root canals might be difficult
due to the handling characteristics of adhesive systems,
root anatomy, etc. [22,23] A new resin cement was
introduced in 2002, which has selfadhesion mechanism
(RelyX Unicem, 3MESPE; St. Paul MN, USA). These
materials were designed with intent to bring favorable
characteristics of different cement classes in order
to single products.[8] Today, clinicians can use either
combinations of dualcure bonding agents and resin
cement or self adhesive resin cement, depending
on their chooses. This study was aimed to compare
different adhesion techniques (selfadhesive, selfetch
and etch and rinse) on push out bond strength of fiber
post in root canal. The results of this study showed that
selfetch and etch and rinse luting cements had higher
bond strength than selfadhesive cement. This results
can explain by resin dentin inter diffusion zone and
resin tags, which can occurred strength at selfetch and
etch and rinse adhesion techniques, might lead better
bond strength. However, further studies needed to
explain this issue.
Fracture analysis showed a large number of mixed failure,
which was contain both cohesive failure in resin cement and
adhesive failure both within resin cement-post and between
resin cementroot canal walls. This was explained by the
both absence of polymerization of cements close to dentin
and due to lack of adhesion to root canals. Furthermore,
because of high configuration factor (Cfactor) occurred
polymerization shrinkage during the curing of cements.
Cfactor may have a detrimental effect on the integrity of
the bond to the root canal walls.[24]
Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 2 / Issue - 1 / Jan-Apr 2014 35

[Downloaded free from http://www.jresdent.org on Wednesday, June 08, 2016, IP: 202.67.37.35]
Pala, etal.: Effects of different bonding techniques on fiber post bond strength

CONCLUSION
Within the limitation of results this study, bond strength
significantly affected by the post type and resin cements
used for luting. The highest bond strength was obtained
for Unicore post luted with Duolink cement. The
pushout bond strength in selfadhesive cement was
significantly lower than selfetch and etches and rinse
adhesives cement.
Fracture analysis showed there was predominance
of mixed failure in all groups. Furthermore, no
significant differences found in failure modes except
coronal and apical region of Unicore post with luted
BisCem resin cement.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

9.
10.
11.

12.
13.
14.
15.

This study was presented as a poster presentation at 5thbiennial

meeting of the European Federation of Conservative Dentistry
1315October 2011, Istanbul, Turkey.

16.

REFERENCES

17.

1.
2.
3.
4.

5.
6.
7.
8.

SchwartzRS, RobbinsJW. Post placement and restoration

of endodontically treated teeth: Aliterature review. JEndod
2004;30:289301.
CheungW. Areview of the management of endodontically treated
teeth. Post, core and the final restoration. J Am Dent Assoc
2005;136:6119.
BatemanG, RickettsDN, SaundersWP. Fibrebased post
systems: Areview. Br Dent J 2003;195:438.
FokkingaWA, KreulenCM, VallittuPK, CreugersNH. Astructured
analysis of in vitro failure loads and failure modes of fiber,
metal, and ceramic postandcore systems. Int J Prosthodont
2004;17:47682.
MirmohammadiH, GergesE, SalamehZ, WesselinkPR. Effect
of post diameter and cement thickness on bond strength of fiber
posts. Quintessence Int 2013;44:80110.
CagidiacoMC, GoracciC, GarciaGodoyF, FerrariM. Clinical
studies of fiber posts: A literature review. Int J Prosthodont
2008;21:32836.
AksornmuangJ, FoxtonRM, NakajimaM, TagamiJ. Microtensile
bond strength of a dualcure resin core material to glass and
quartz fibre posts. JDent 2004;32:44350.
Radovic I, Mazzitelli C, Chieffi N, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the
adhesion of fiber posts cemented using different adhesive
approaches. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:55763.

36 Journal of Restorative Dentistry / Vol - 2 / Issue - 1 / Jan-Apr 2014

18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.

OnayEO, KorkmazY, KiremitciA. Effect of adhesive system type

and root region on the pushout bond strength of glassfibre posts
to radicular dentine. Int Endod J 2010;43:25968.
RathkeA, HajOmerD, MucheR, HallerB. Effectiveness of
bonding fiber posts to root canals and composite core buildups.
Eur J Oral Sci 2009;117:60410.
MannocciF, FerrariM, WatsonTF. Microleakage of endodontically
treated teeth restored with fiber posts and composite cores after
cyclic loading: Aconfocal microscopic study. JProsthet Dent
2001;85:28491.
JongsmaLA, BolhuisPB, PallavP, FeilzerAJ, KleverlaanCJ.
Benefits of a twostep cementation procedure for prefabricated
fiber posts. JAdhes Dent 2010;12:5562.
NagasE, CehreliZC, DurmazV, VallittuPK, LassilaLV. Regional
pushout bond strength and coronal microleakage of Resilon after
different lightcuring methods. JEndod 2007;33:14648.
FarinaAP, CecchinD, Garcia LdaF, NavesLZ, SobrinhoLC,
PiresdeSouza FdeC. Bond strength of fiber posts in different
root thirds using resin cement. JAdhes Dent 2011;13:17986.
GoracciC, TavaresAU, FabianelliA, MonticelliF, RaffaelliO,
CardosoPC, etal. The adhesion between fiber posts and root
canal walls: Comparison between microtensile and pushout bond
strength measurements. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:35361.
Van MeerbeekB, De MunckJ, YoshidaY, InoueS, VargasM,
VijayP, etal. Buonocore memorial lecture. Adhesion to enamel
and dentin: Current status and future challenges. Oper Dent
2003;28:21535.
FrankenbergerR, Krmer N, PetscheltA. Fatigue behaviour of
different dentin adhesives. Clin Oral Investig 1999;3:117.
KurtzJS, Perdigo J, GeraldeliS, HodgesJS, BowlesWR. Bond
strengths of toothcolored posts, effect of sealer, dentin adhesive,
and root region. Am J Dent 2003;16 Spec No: 31A6A.
BouillaguetS, TroeschS, WatahaJC, KrejciI, MeyerJM,
PashleyDH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive
cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater 2003;19:199205.
ZorbaYO, ErdemirA, TurkyilmazA, EldenizAU. Effects of
different curing units and luting agents on pushout bond strength
of translucent posts. JEndod 2010;36:15215.
Perdigo J, GeraldeliS, LeeIK. Pushout bond strengths of
toothcolored posts bonded with different adhesive systems. Am
J Dent 2004;17:4226.
FerrariM, MannocciF, VichiA, CagidiacoMC, Mjr IA. Bonding
to root canal: Structural characteristics of the substrate. Am J
Dent 2000;13:25560.
DrummondJL, ToepkeTR, KingTJ. Thermal and cyclic loading
of endodontic posts. Eur J Oral Sci 1999;107:2204.
Jongsma LA, Kleverlaan CJ, Pallav P, Feilzer AJ. Influence
of polymerization mode and Cfactor on cohesive strength of
dualcured resin cements. Dent Mater 2012;28:7228.

How to cite this article: Pala K, Demirbuga S, Gms H, Arslan S,

Zorba YO. Effect of different bonding techniques on the bond strength of

two different fiber posts. J Res Dent 2014;2:32-6.

Source of Support: Nil, Conflict of Intrest: Nil.