pyrig

No Co

ht
t fo
Adhesion Between Fiber Posts and Resin Luting Agents:
rP

by N
ub

Q ui
lica
A Microtensile Bond Strength Test and an SEM te tio
n ot

n
ss e n c e fo r
Investigation Following Different Treatments of the
Post Surface
Elisa Magnia/Claudia Mazzitellia/Federica Papacchinia/Ivana Radovicb/Cecilia Goraccic/
Ivanovic Coniglioa/Marco Ferrarid

Purpose: (1) To evaluate the interfacial strength between FRC Postec posts and three luting agents (Multilink, Variolink
II, and MultiCore Flow) following different surface treatments, and (2) to observe the effect of sandblasting (Rocatec
Pre) on the surface morphology of methacrylate-based fiber posts.

Materials and Methods: The posts received one of the following surface treatments: (1) sandblasting, (2) sandblasting
+ silanization, (3) silanization or (4) no treatment. The three luting agents were bonded to the post and the post-ce-
ment bond strength was evaluated with the microtensile test. SEM observation of sandblasted and nontreated posts
was performed. Post-cement interfaces were also evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed with two-Way ANOVA with
post treatment and luting agent as factors. Tukey’s test was applied for post-hoc comparisons.

Results: Post treatment and the interaction between type of luting agent and type of post treatment were significant fac-
tors for bond strength (p < 0.001). The type of luting agent did not significantly influence bond strength (p = 0.07). Sand-
blasting + silanization performed better than sandblasting or no treatment (p < 0.001). Silanization resulted in
significantly higher bond strengths than no treatment (p = 0.045). No differences were detected between sandblasting
+ silanization and silanization. SEM observation revealed an increased surface roughness and exposure of fibers in
sandblasted posts.

Conclusion: Silanization was confirmed to be a reliable method for improving the bond strength of resin luting agents
to fiber posts. Bond strength of resin luting agents to fiber posts was not influenced by the type of luting agent. The
sandblasting procedure modified the methacrylate-based post surface texture.

Keywords: fiber posts, sandblasting, silane, microtensile bond strength.

J Adhes Dent 2007; 9: 195-202. Submitted for publication: 29.06.06; accepted for publication: 31.10.06.

T he restoration of endodontically treated teeth with fiber

posts is widely performed in the clinical practice in order
to retain a core in teeth with an extensive loss of coronal
structure.36 Fiber posts have an elastic modulus similar to
a Department of Dental Materials and Restorative Dentistry, Policlinico “Le
Scotte”, University of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy.
b Clinic for Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of
Belgrade, Serbia and Montenegro; Department of dental materials and
restorative dentistry, Policlinico “Le Scotte”, University of Siena, Viale Bracci,
Siena, Italy.
c Assistant Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Restorative Den-
tistry, Policlinico “Le Scotte”, University of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy.
d Dean and Professor, Department of Dental Materials and Restorative Den-
tistry, Policlinico “Le Scotte”, University of Siena, Viale Bracci, Siena, Italy.
Reprint requests: Marco Ferrari, Chairman and Professor, Department of
Restorative Dentistry and Dental Materials, University of Siena. Policlinico Le
Scotte, Viale Bracci, 53100 Siena, Italy. Tel: +39-057-723-3131, Fax: +39-057-
723-3117. e-mail: md3972@mclink.it
dentin, allowing for a better distribution of loads to the tooth
than metal posts.2,13,19 Many in vitro studies have shown
that fiber posts bonded with resin cements can reduce the
stress concentration in root dentin and thus the occurrence
of catastrophic root fractures.1,4,8,14,20,27,32 Prospective and
retrospective clinical studies have reported that in restora-
tions placed with adhesively luted fiber posts, failure most
commonly occurs due to debonding of the post.10,11,22
Therefore, an enhancement of the adhesion of resin ce-
ments to post and to root dentin is desirable.
Many studies have focused attention on different ways of
improving the interfacial strength between posts and resin
based materials. The surface energy characteristics of den-
tal posts, which can be modified through various techniques,
have been reported to influence bonding of resin luting
agents.3 Mechanical and chemical treatments of the post
surface12,24,25,34,38 and changes in the post matrix compo-
sition17,18 seemed to influence the bond strength of resin
materials to fiber posts.

Vol 9, No 2, 2007 195

Magni et al pyrig
No Co

ht
Table 1 Composition, batch numbers, and application mode of the materials used in the study
t fo
rP

by N
ub

Q ui
Material Composition Application lica
tio
te n ot

n
Postec Glass fibers ss e n c e fo r
(Ivoclar Vivadent) Matrix: urethane dimethacrylate, triethylene glycol
Batch no. H31059 dimethacrylate -
Additional contents: ytterbium trifluoride, highly dis-
persed silicon dioxide

Rocatec Pre Aluminum oxide, particle size 110 μm Sandblasting at a distance of 1 cm at

(3M ESPE) 2.8 bar for 5 s
Batch no. 080

Total etch Phosphoric acid (37% wt in water), silicon dioxide, Apply on post surface 60 s, rinse
(Ivoclar Vivadent) pigments
Batch no. H27115

Monobond-S 1% 3-methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane (3-MPS), Apply to the post surface,

(Ivoclar Vivadent) ethanol/water-based solvent air dry after 60 s
Batch no. H34023

Multilink Automix Matrix: dimethacrylate, HEMA Dispense from the automix syringe,
(Ivoclar Vivadent) Fillers: barium glass, ytterbium trifluoride, spheroid light cure
Batch no. H25710 mixed oxide. Particle size 0.25-3.0 μm. Total volume of
fillers ca 40%

Variolink II Matrix: bis-GMA, urethane dimethacrylate, triethylene Mix base and catalyst 1:1 for 10 s,
(Ivoclar Vivadent) glycol dimethacrylate apply, light cure
Fillers: barium glass, ytterbium trifluoride, Ba-Al-fluo-
Base: rosilicate glass, spheroid mixed oxide. Particle size
Batch no. H24901 0.04-3.0 μm. Total volume of inorganic matter 46.7%
Catalyst: (base), 43.6% (catalyst)
Batch no. H33173 Additional contents: catalysts, stabilizers, pigments

MultiCore Flow Matrix: bis-GMA, urethane dimethacrylate, triethylene Dispense from the automix syringe,
(Ivoclar Vivadent) glycol dimethacrylate light cure
Batch no. H20666 Fillers: barium glass, ytterbium trifluoride, Ba-Al-fluo-
rosilicate glass, highly dispersed silicon dioxide. Parti-
cle size 0.04-25 μm. Total volume of fillers 47%.

Recent studies have shown that sandblasting is able to
increase the interfacial strength between fiber posts and
resin luting agents34 as well as post retention.5 Rocatec Pre
(3M ESPE; Seefeld, Germany) is a laboratory sandblasting
powder consisting of 110-μm aluminum oxide particles that
can be blasted to obtain a clean and activated surface with
an increased roughness. In a recent investigation, this pro-
cedure has been reported to be effective in improving the ad-
hesion between zirconium oxide posts and a resin cement.6
Little is currently known on the effect that this treatment
alone or in combination with other post surface treatments
could exert on methacrylate-based fiber posts and on their
interfacial strength with resin cements.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the interfacial
strength between fiber posts and three different resin luting
agents following different treatments of post surface. The
study also aimed to observe the effect of sandblasting on
the surface morphology of methacrylate-based fiber posts.
The null hypotheses tested were that (1) neither the post sur-
face treatment nor the type of resin luting agent affects the
post-cement bond strength and that (2) sandblasting does
not change the surface characteristics of methacrylate-
based fiber posts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Seventy-six fiber posts (FRC Postec, size 3, Ivoclar Vivadent;
Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a coronal diameter of 2.0 mm
were used in this study. The posts were divided into four
groups according to the different surface treatments per-
formed. In group 1 (n = 20), the posts were sandblasted with
aluminum oxide particles (Rocatec Pre, 3M ESPE; Seefeld,
Germany). In group 2 (n = 18) sandblasting with aluminum
oxide particles (Rocatec Pre) was followed by the application
of a silane coupling agent (Monobond-S, Ivoclar-Vivadent). In

196 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry


group 3 (n = 18), the posts received only silane application
(Monobond-S). In group 4 (n = 20), no surface treatment was
performed and it served as control.
Prior to silane application in groups 2 and 3 and prior to
the luting procedure in groups 1 and 4, the posts were
cleaned with phosphoric acid gel (Total Etch, Ivoclar-Vi-
vadent) as recommended by the manufacturer and then
rinsed with water. The chemical composition, batch num-
bers, and the application modes of all the materials used in
the study are shown in Table 1.
Luting Procedure and Microtensile Testing
The luting procedure was performed for 18 posts in each
group. The remaining four posts (two for group 1 and two for
group 4) were processed for SEM observation as further de-
scribed. Three luting agents (Multilink, MultiCore Flow, and
Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent) were bonded to the posts fol-
lowing the technique previously described by Goracci et al.12
Each post was positioned perpendicularly on a glass slab
and secured with a drop of sticky wax. A plastic matrix 10
mm in diameter was placed around the cylindrical portion of
the post and adjusted so that the post would be exactly in
the middle. The luting agents were applied inside the matrix
and adapted to the post surface. Each resin cement was
light cured for 40 s with a halogen curing light (600 mW/cm2
output; VIP, Bisco; Schaumburg, IL, USA) directly from the
open upper side of the matrix and through the post. Addi-
tional 40-s irradiations were performed from each side of the
cylinder prior to the removal of the matrix to ensure optimal
polymerization of the material. The sectioning and loading
of the specimens was performed upon completion of the ce-
mentation procedure, in order to simulate the clinical situa-
tion of immediate loading following cementation of fiber
posts. Five cylinders for each surface treatment/luting agent
combination were mounted in a cutting machine (Isomet
1000, Buehler; Lake Bluff, IL, USA) and sectioned longitudi-
nally under water cooling to obtain a slab of uniform thick-
ness, with the post in the center and cement on each side.
The slab was further sectioned in order to obtain beam-
shaped specimens according to the microtensile nontrim-
ming technique. Beams were glued (Super Attak Gel, Henkel
Loctite Adesivi; Milano, Italy) to the two free sliding compo-
nents of a jig, which was mounted on a universal testing ma-
chine (Triax 50, Controls; Milano, Italy) and loaded in tension
at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until failure occurred
at either side of the post-composite interface. A schematic
drawing of specimen preparation for microtensile testing is
shown in Fig 1. Failure modes were evaluated with a stere-
omicroscope (SMZ645, Nikon; Tokyo, Japan) at 40X magni-
fication and recorded as adhesive (at the post/cement in-
terface), cohesive (within the post or the cement) or mixed
(a combination of the two modes of failure in the same in-
terface). Pretesting failures were also recorded (ie, failures
that occurred during the cutting or gluing procedures). Bond
strength was expressed in MPa, dividing the load at failure
in Newtons by the bonding surface area. As the bonded in-
terface was curved, its area was calculated using a mathe-
matical formula previously applied by Bouillaguet et al.7
Pretesting failures were considered as 0 MPa bond strength
values and included in the statistical analysis.
Vol 9, No 2, 2007
pyri
No Co Magnig et al
ht
t fo
rP
by N
ub
Q ui
lica
tio
te ot n
n
P ss e n c e
fo r
C
Fig 1 Specimen preparation for microtensile bond strength test-
ing. C: cement; P: post.
Statistical Analysis of the Microtensile Bond Strength
Data
Having verified that data distribution was normal (Kol-
mogorov-Smirnov test, p > 0.05) and that group variances
were homogeneous (Levene’s test, p < 0.05), the two-way
analysis of variance was applied with bond strength as the
dependent variable and type of post surface treatment and
type of luting agent as factors. Tukey’s test was applied for
post-hoc comparisons where needed. In all the analyses, the
level of significance was set at α = 95% and calculations
were performed by the SPSS 11.0 software (SPSS: Chicago,
IL, USA).
Two posts each from groups 1 and 4 were examined with
a scanning electron microscope (JSM 6060 LV, JEOL; Tokyo,
Japan) in order to detect differences in the surface texture
between sandblasted and untreated posts. One post from
each group was observed longitudinally, while the other was
cross sectioned with a diamond saw (Isomet, Buehler). The
specimens were rinsed in deionized water, immersed in 96%
ethanol and air dried. Each specimen was mounted on a
metallic stub, gold sputtered (Polaron Range SC7620, Quo-
rum Technology; Newhaven, UK), and observed under a
scanning electron microscope (JSM 6060 LV) at different
magnifications.
Following cementation procedures, one post-cement
cylinder from each surface treatment/luting agent combi-
nation was randomly chosen for the SEM evaluation of the
adhesive interface. Two 1.5-mm-thick cross sections and
one longitudinal section through the center of the post were
cut in each cylinder (Isomet 1000). Sections were polished
with wet silicon carbide paper of increasing grit (600, 1000,
1200), etched with 32% phosphoric acid for 15 s (Uni-etch,
Bisco, Lot 0500003648; Schaumburg, IL, USA), rinsed with
deionized water, immersed in 96% ethanol, and air dried.
Each section was then mounted on a metallic stub, gold
sputtered (Polaron Range SC7620), and observed under a
scanning electron microscope (JSM 6060 LV) at different
magnifications.
197
Magni et al pyrig
No Co

ht
Table 2 Means and standard deviations of bond strength values in all the experimental groups.
t fo
rP

by N
ub

Q ui
Treatment lica
tio
t n ot

n
Cement Sandblasting Sandblasting Silane Noetreatment
ss e n c e fo r
+ silane

Multilink 14.51 (5.08)CD 22.23 (5.63)A 17.50 (11.28)ABCD 19.42 (10.52)ABC

[31] [35] [28] [26]

Variolink II 16.08 (5.56)BCD 17.03 (8.36)ABCD 19.75 (8.67)AB 12.73 (7.23)CD

[41] [45] [40] [32]

MultiCore 15.81 (8.27)BCD 20.03 (7.14)AB 17.08 (9.68)ABCD 13.40 (6.01)CD

Flow [41] [42] [37] [38]

Different superscript letters indicate statistically significant differences. The number of specimen tested is reported in square brackets

Table 3 Failure distribution in the experimental groups

Cement Surface treatment Failure

Adhesive Cohesive Mixed Pretesting Total

sandblasting 29 2 31
Multilink sandblasting+silane 27 8 35
silane 22 6 28
no treatment 24 2 26
sandblasting 36 5 41

Variolink II sandblasting+silane 30 14 1 45
silane 34 5 1 40
no treatment 29 3 32
sandblasting 37 4 41

MultiCore Flow sandblasting+silane 27 13 1 1 42

silane 30 5 2 37
no treatment 35 3 38

RESULTS treatment are plotted in Fig 2. The interaction between type

Interfacial Strength
Mean values and standard deviations of the interfacial
strength data for all the experimental groups are reported in
Table 2. Failure modes are showed in Table 3. The two-way
ANOVA showed that the type of luting agent was not a sig-
nificant factor for bond strength (p = 0.07). Conversely, the
type of post surface treatment significantly influenced bond
strength (p < 0.001), with sandblasting + silane yielding sig-
nificantly better results than sandblasting alone (p < 0.001)
and no treatment (p < 0.001). Silanization resulted in sig-
nificantly higher bond strengths than no treatment (p =
0.045). No significant differences in bond strength were de-
tected between sandblasting + silane and silane groups.
Mean bond strength values according to the post surface
of cement and type of post treatment was a significant fac-
tor for bond strength (p < 0.001). Significant interactions are
reported in Table 2. None of the surface treatments signifi-
cantly improved the bond strength of Multilink to the posts
compared to the control group. Nevertheless, in combina-
tion with Multilink, the sandblasting + silane procedure gave
significantly better results than the sandblasting and result-
ed in higher bond strengths compared to the use of the
silane even if the differences were not statistically signifi-
cant. The silanization of the post surface significantly influ-
enced the interfacial strength only for Variolink II compared
to the control group, but the bond strengths achieved did not
significantly differ from the other treatments. As regards
MultiCore Flow, the combination between sandblasting and
silanization allowed for the highest interfacial strengths and

198 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

 pyri
No Co Magnig et al

ht
t fo
rP

by N
50
ub

Q ui
lica
tio
40
te otn

n
ss e n c e
fo r
[M Pa]

30

20

10

No treatment Sandblasting
Silane Sandblasting + silane
Fig 3a SEM micrograph of untreated post surface
(250x, bar = 100 μm).
Fig 2 Means and standard deviations according to surface
treatment.

significantly improved the bond strength of this material to

the post surface compared to the no treatment group.
Among all experimental groups, Multilink in combination
with sandblasting + silane exhibited the highest bond
strength. Conversely, Variolink II associated with no treat-
ment of the post surface resulted in the lowest interfacial
strength.

SEM Evaluation
SEM observation revealed the efficacy of the sandblasting
treatment in modifying the fiber post surface. The resin ma-
trix appeared removed from the surface of the sandblasted
post, resulting in an enhancement of the surface roughness
Fig 3b SEM micrograph of sandblased post surface
and in a greater exposure of the glass fibers in comparison (250x, bar = 100 μm).
to the untreated post (Fig 3a and 3b). No signs of damage
to the exposed glass fibers were present (Fig 3b). Cross-sec-
tional views showed that the action of sandblasting extend-
ed to a depth of 25 μm and the exposed glass fibers ap-
peared still partially embedded in the resin matrix, which
was only moderately removed by the sandblasting procedure
(Fig 3c).
The observation of the bonded specimens revealed that
all the investigated materials penetrated into the microre-
tentions on sandblasted and subsequently silanized posts.
This finding was particularly evident when the cross sections
were observed (not shown). When sandblasting was not fol-
lowed by silanization, Variolink II showed the worst adapta-
tion to the post surface (Fig 4). Although the silanization
alone resulted in a continuity of the bonded interface for all
the luting materials, no signs of post surface roughness and
consequent micromechanical interlocking were observed in
these specimens (not shown). The lack of surface treatment Fig 3c SEM micrograph of cross-sectional view of a sandblasted
resulted in inferior adaptation of all the investigated luting post (1000X, bar = 10 μm).
agents to the post surface. When the interface area was ob-
served longitudinally, both Variolink II and MultiCore Flow ex-
hibited areas of poor contact with the post surface (Figs 5a
and 5b). Although Multilink adapted better than the other two
materials to the untreated post, a discontinuity of the bond-
ed interface was observed for this cement as well (Fig 5c).

Vol 9, No 2, 2007 199

Magni et al pyrig
No Co

ht
t fo
rP

by N
ub

Q ui
lica
tio
te ot n

n
ss e n c e
fo r

Fig 4 Representative SEM image of the interface between the Fig 5a SEM micrograph of interface between untreated post (p)
sandblasted post (P) and Variolink II (V) (500X, bar = 50 μm). and Variolink (V) (500 x, bar 50 μm).
Areas of poor adhesion along the interface are indicated by aster-
isks.

DISCUSSION

The use of different surface treatments and the interaction

between the type of treatment and the type of cement sig-
nificantly affected the bond strength between fiber posts and
resin luting agents. Moreover, SEM investigation revealed a
significant effect of sandblasting with Rocatec Pre on the sur-
face morphology of methacrylate-based posts. Thus, both
null hypotheses tested in this study have to be rejected.
The combination of a simple laboratory mechanical treat-
ment, ie, sandblasting, followed by a chair-side chemical
treatment, ie, silanization, significantly improved the mi- Fig 5b SEM micrograph of interface between untreated post (p)
crotensile bond strength of resin luting agents to the post, and MultiCore Flow (MF) (500 x, bar 50 μm).
compared to the results of sandblasting alone or when no
treatment of the post surface was performed. Sandblasting
with aluminum oxide particles is meant to provide plastic de-
formation and roughening of a treated surface, resulting in
an increased surface area and a volume loss.15 This proce-
dure has been shown to improve the retention of glass fiber
posts in root canals.5 The Rocatec Pre powder used in the
present study consists of 110-μm aluminum oxide particles;
this powder was previously demonstrated to increase the
surface roughness of zirconium oxide posts, leading to a sig-
nificant improvement of the interfacial strength between the
post and a resin cement.6 Previous studies employed small-
er particles for sandblasting fiber posts,5,34,35 and the par-
ticle size is considered to be a factor contributing to the vol-
ume loss16 and to the surface distortion.31 A recent study37 Fig 5c
demonstrated that sandblasting with 30-μm silicon oxide
did not affect the flexural strength of fiber posts and it may Fig 5c SEM micrograph of the interface between untreated post
be questioned whether the use of particles larger than Ro- (P) and Multilink (ML) (500X, bar = 50 μm) .
catec Pre’s could weaken the post and impair its mechani-
cal properties. According to the SEM observation performed
in this study, Rocatec Pre did not seem to alter the post mor- The morphological and dimensional changes produced
phology dramatically (Fig 3b). However, further investiga- by the sandblasting procedure vary in function of pressure
tions are needed in order to assess the effect of different and duration.15,16,31 Different ranges of duration and pres-
particles size on the morphology and mechanical behavior sure have been reported in the literature when the proce-
of fiber posts. dure was applied to fiber posts.5,34,35,37 Since clear infor-

200 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry


mation regarding the most appropriate sandblasting condi-
tions is still lacking, the manufacturer’s recommendations
were followed in this study and the sandblasting procedure
was performed at 2.8 bar for 5 s. According to the manu-
facturer, the sandblasting time was adjusted, as the post
surface was smaller than 1 cm2 (for which 15 s are recom-
mended). The reduction of the sandblasting time in order to
obtain milder effects on the blasted substrate was previ-
ously described15 and has been recently reported to be one
of the effective adjustments of the sandblasting conditions
in order to avoid overly pronounced dimensional changes
when the procedure was applied on fiber posts.5 The man-
ual rotation of the post during the sandblasting procedure
should have ensured an adequate and uniform roughening
of the post. The possible presence of small, inadequately air-
abraded areas on the post surface should not have affect-
ed the outcome of the study, as no significant differences in
bond strength were detected between the sandblasted and
no-treatment groups.
SEM observation confirmed that Rocatec Pre is able to im-
prove the surface roughness of the methacrylate-based FRC
Postec posts and to expose glass fibers without damaging
them (Fig 3b). This mild effect on the post surface texture
could be considered an advantage compared to more ag-
gressive procedures, such as etching with hydrofluoric acid,
recently reported to alter the post structure radically, dam-
aging the glass fibers, and depriving them of their resin em-
bedding.38
Despite the increased surface area available for bonding
the resin luting agent, sandblasting treatment did not sig-
nificantly improve the interfacial strength between post and
resin luting agents when it was not followed by the silane ap-
plication. Sahafi et al34 reported that sandblasting signifi-
cantly increased shear bond strength between fiber posts
and resin cements. In the present investigation the mi-
crotensile bond strength test instead of the shear strength
test was performed. This method has been widely accepted
for the evaluation of interfacial strengths between various
substrates.30 Moreover, in the study by Sahafi et al,34 a
ground post surface was sandblasted with 50-μm aluminum
oxide particles, while in this study 110-μm aluminum oxide
particles were blasted onto an intact post surface. This dif-
ference in the experimental conditions could have account-
ed for the discrepancy in the results. Nevertheless, the study
by Sahafi et al34 showed that the combination of sand-
blasting and silanization allowed for the highest interfacial
strengths between posts and cements, which is consistent
with the results of the present investigation.
Silane coupling agents are commonly used in dental prac-
tice in order to improve the adhesion of resin-based materi-
als to prosthodontic substrates.21,26,33 These agents seem
to be able to bridge resins and OH-covered inorganic sub-
strates.28 Silanes have been reported to enhance the sur-
face wettability and the chemical union between resin- based
materials and glass fibers,29 and to increase the interfacial
strength between fiber posts and resin core materials.12 The
partial removal of the resin matrix due to sandblasting in-
creased the number of exposed glass fibers and conse-
quentially the surface area available for reacting with the
silane, allowing for higher interfacial strengths than sand-
Vol 9, No 2, 2007
pyri
No Co Magnig et al
ht
t fo
blasting alone. This finding is in agreement with
r P the study
by N
ub
by Monticelli et al,25 which reported that the application
lica of
Q ui
a silane on the post surface etched with hydrogen peroxide ti
te strength be-on
yielded a significant increase in the interfacial ot
n
nc e
ss etreatment
tween post and core materials over the etching
fo r
alone. In the study by Monticelli et al,25 the combination be-
tween hydrogen peroxide etching and silanization resulted
in significantly higher bond strengths compared to silane ap-
plication. The latter finding contrasts with the results of the
present study, since no significant differences in bond
strength were detected between the use of silane alone or
combined with sandblasting. It may be speculated that
sandblasting had a milder effect than hydrogen peroxide
etching. Consequently, the effect of increased surface area
available for reacting with the silane may not be compara-
ble to the dissolution of the resin matrix and the exposure
of five layers of fibers resulting from hydrogen peroxide etch-
ing.25 Moreover, the SEM observation confirmed that the
adaptation of the resin cements to the post surface was not
different between the silanized posts and posts that were
sandblasted prior to silane application, despite the pres-
ence of an increased surface roughness in the latter (not
shown).
Three different resin luting agents were used in this study.
Variolink II and Multilink are two resin cements suitable for
luting different types of indirect restorations. MultiCore Flow
is claimed by the manufacturer to be effective for both lut-
ing and core buildup. According to the statistical analysis,
the type of cement did not significantly affect the interfacial
strength. This could be explained by the fact that only ma-
terials recommended by the fiber post’s manufacturer were
used, in order to ensure compatibility between the resin ma-
trix of the posts and the resin cement. This could account for
the similar performance among the materials when the
same type of post surface treatment was performed. Taking
this last point into account, it may be advisable for the clin-
ician to use MultiCore Flow, since this material can be used
as both the cement and the core material. Even though this
luting agent did not produce the highest bond strengths, its
clinical use could offer some advantages. The post place-
ment procedure could be easier and less time consuming.
Moreover, using the same composite resin as both the ce-
ment and the core results in fewer interfaces between dif-
ferent types of materials and therefore in fewer critical areas
where fracture can occur.
In the present investigation, adhesives were not used for
the treatment of the post surface. Ferrari et al9 have recently
reported that an intermediate adhesive layer does not im-
prove bond strength of core materials to FRC Postec posts.
On the other hand, another study reported that the post
treatment with sodium ethoxide followed by different
silane/adhesive combinations exhibited a significant im-
provement of interfacial strengths between a hybrid com-
posite and fiber posts.23 Further investigations should be
performed in order to evaluate the effect of an intermediate
adhesive layer on bond strength of resin cements to sand-
blasted FRC Postec posts.
The interfacial strength between post and luting agents
was evaluated immediately after the bonding procedure. It
has been reported that the bond strength of resin cements
201
Magni et al
decreased after thermocycling, depending on the surface
treatment.26 Therefore, further investigations are needed to
assess the effect of surface treatments on the durability of
the bond between fiber posts and resin luting agents.
Another limitation of this study is related to the high ce-
ment thickness around the post due to the diameter of the
cylindrical plastic matrix. Such a thick cement layer does not
represent clinical conditions and could have increased the
risk of air voids within the material, leading to an increase of
cohesive failures under load.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limits of the present investigation, despite the in-
creased surface roughness produced by the sandblasting
procedure, the application of a silane coupling agent on the
post surface is confirmed to be a fundamental clinical step
for improving the bond strength of resin cements to FRC
Postec posts. Moreover, the luting agent chosen – whether
Variolink II, Multilink and MultiCore Flow – for bonding FRC
Postec posts is irrelevant, as the type of cement does not af-
fect the post-cement bond strength.
REFERENCES
1. Akkayan B, Gulmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated
teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-
437.
2. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic limit, and strength
of newer types of endodontic posts. J Dent 1999;27:275-278.
3. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A. Bonding of resin cements to post ma-
terials: influence of surface energy characteristics. J Adhes Dent
2005;7:231-234.
4. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Sahafi A. Finite element analysis of stresses in
endodontically treated, dowel-restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent
2005;94:321-329.
5. Balbosh A, Kern M. Effect of surface treatment on retention of glass-fiber
endodontic posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:218-223.
6. Bitter K, Priehn K, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. In vitro evaluation of push-out
bond strengths of various luting agents to tooth-colored posts. J Prosthet
Dent 2006;95:302-310.
7. Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley DH. Mi-
crotensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal
dentin. Dent Mater 2003;19:199-205.
8. De Santis R, Prisco D, Apicella A, Ambrosio L, Rengo S, Nicolais L. Carbon
fiber post adhesion to resin luting cement in the restoration of endodonti-
cally treated teeth. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2000;11:201-206.
9. Ferrari M, Goracci C, Sadek FT, Monticelli F, Tay FR. An investigation of the
interfacial strengths of methacrylate resin-based glass fiber post-core
build-ups. J Adhes Dent 2006;8:239-245.
10. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced
epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:15B-18B.
11. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Mannocci F, Mason PN. Retrospective study of the clini-
cal performance of fiber posts. Am J Dent 2000;13:9B-13B.
12. Goracci C, Raffaelli O, Monticelli F, Balleri B, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. The adhe-
sion between prefabricated FRC posts and composite resin cores: mi-
crotensile bond strength with and without post-silanization. Dent Mater
2005;21:437-444.
13. Goto Y, Nicholls JI, Phillips KM, Junge T. Fatigue resistance of endodonti-
cally treated teeth restored with three dowel-and-core systems. J Prosthet
Dent 2005;93:45-50.
14. Hayashi M, Takahashi Y, Imazato S, Ebisu S. Fracture resistance of pulpless
teeth restored with post-cores and crowns. Dent Mater 2006;22:477-485.
15. Kern M, Thompson VP. Sandblasting and silica coating of a glass-infiltrated
alumina ceramic: volume loss, morphology, and changes in the surface
composition. J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:453-461.
202
pyrig
No Co
ht
16.
t fo of dental alloys: vol-
Kern M, Thompson VP. Sandblasting and silica-coating
r composition.
by N
ume loss, morphology and changes in the surface Pu Dent
bli
Q ui
Mater. 1993 May;9(3):151-161.
17.
cat
Le Bell AM, Lassila LV, Kangasniemi I, Vallittu PK. Bonding of fibre-rein-
forced composite post to root canal dentin. J Dent 2005;33:533-539. on
i
te P. Bonding of com-
ot
n
18. ss e c e
Le Bell AM, Tanner J, Lassila LV, Kangasniemi I, Vallittu
fo r
posite resin luting cement to fiber-reinforced composite rootncanal posts. J
Adhes Dent 2004;6:319-325.
19. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored
using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root
canal posts. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:153-158.
20. Martinez-Insua A, da Silva L, Rilo B, Santana U. Comparison of the fracture
resistances of pulpless teeth restored with a cast post and core or carbon-
fiber post with a composite core. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:527-532.
21. Matinlinna JP, Lassila LV, Ozcan M, Yli-Urpo A, Vallittu PK. An introduction
to silanes and their clinical applications in dentistry. Int J Prosthodont
2004;17:155-164.
22. Monticelli F, Grandini S, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Clinical behavior of translu-
cent-fiber posts: a 2-year prospective study. Int J Prosthodont
2003;16:593-596.
23. Monticelli F, Osorio R, Toledano M, Goracci C, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Improving
the quality of the quartz fiber postcore bond using sodium ethoxide etch-
ing and combined silane/adhesive coupling. J Endod 2006;32:447-451.
24. Monticelli F, Toledano M, Tay FR, Cury AH, Goracci C, Ferrari M. Post-sur-
face conditioning improves interfacial adhesion in post/core restorations.
Dent Mater 2006;22:602-609.
25. Monticelli F, Toledano M, Tay FR, Sadek FT, Goracci C, Ferrari M. A simple
etching technique for improving the retention of fiber posts to resin com-
posites. J Endod 2006;32:44-47.
26. Nagai T, Kawamoto Y, Kakehashi Y, Matsumura H. Adhesive bonding of a
lithium disilicate ceramic material with resin-based luting agents. J Oral Re-
habil 2005;32:598-605.
27. Newman MP, Yaman P, Dennison J, Rafter M, Billy E. Fracture resistance of
endodontically treated teeth restored with composite posts. J Prosthet
Dent 2003;89:360-367.
28. Pape PG, Plueddemann EP. Methods for improving the performance of
silane coupling agents. J Adhesion Sci Technol 1991; 5: 831-842.
29. Park SJ, Jin JS. Effect of silane coupling agent on interphase and perfor-
mance of glass fibers/unsaturated polyester composites. J Coll Inter Sci
2001; 242:174-179.
30. Pashley DH, Carvalho RM, Sano H, Nakajima M, Yoshiyama M, Shono Y, et
al. The microtensile bond test: a review. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:299-309.
31. Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E. Distortion of alloy by sandblasting. Am J Dent
1996;9:65-66.
32. Rosentritt M, Sikora M, Behr M, Handel G. In vitro fracture resistance and
marginal adaptation of metallic and tooth-coloured post systems. J Oral
Rehabil 2004;31:675-681.
33. Sadan A, Blatz MB, Soignet D. Influence of silanization on early bond
strength to sandblasted densely sintered alumina. Quintessence Int
2003;34:172-176.
34. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Bond strength of resin
cement to dentin and to surface-treated posts of titanium alloy, glass fiber,
and zirconia. J Adhes Dent 2003;5:153-162.
35. Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Retention and failure
morphology of prefabricated posts. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:307-312.
36. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodonti-
cally treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289-301.
37. Valandro LF, Özcan M, de Melo RM, Galhano GA, Baldissara P, Scotti R,
Bottino MA. Effect of silica coating on flexural strength of fiber posts. Int J
Prosthodont 2006;19:74-76.
38. Vano M, Goracci C, Monticelli F, Tognini F, Gabriele M, Tay FR, et al. The ad-
hesion between fibre posts and composite resin cores: the evaluation of
microtensile bond strength following various surface chemical treatments
to posts. Int Endod J 2006;39:31-39.
Clinical relevance: Based on the results of this study, the
application of a silane coupling agent is recommended in
order to improve the bond strength of resin luting agents
to FRC Postec posts.
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry