Bond Strength of Resin Cement to Dentin

and to Surface-treated Posts of Titanium

Alloy, Glass Fiber, and Zirconia
Alireza Sahafia/Anne Peutzfeldtb/Erik Asmussenc/Klaus Gotfredsend

Purpose: To determine the effect of surface treatments on bond strength of two resin cements (ParaPost
Cement and Panavia F) to posts of titanium alloy (ParaPost XH), glass fiber (ParaPost Fiber White), and
zirconia (Cerapost), and to dentin.
Materials and Methods: After embedding, planar surfaces of posts (n = 9 to 14) and human dentin (n
= 10) were obtained by grinding. The posts received one of three surface treatments: 1. roughening
(sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid etching), 2. application of primer (Alloy Primer, Metalprimer II, silane), or
3. roughening followed by application of primer (sandblasting or etching followed by primer, Cojet treat-
ment). ParaPost Cement and Panavia F were bonded to the post and dentin specimens, and the bonded
specimens were placed in water at 37°C for 7 days. The specimens were debonded in shear.
Results: Panavia F had significantly higher bond strength to ground ParaPost XH, Cerapost, and dentin
than did ParaPost Cement. Most surface treatments resulted in an improved bond strength of resin ce-
ments to the posts. Compared to the ground control, Cojet treatment and sandblasting were the most
effective treatments. Etching of Cerapost with hydrofluoric acid with and without silane treatment signif-
icantly decreased the bond strength of Panavia F to the post.
Conclusion: The bond strength of resin cements to the posts was affected by the material of the post,
the surface treatment of the post, and by the type of resin cement. The bond strength of resin cement
to dentin was influenced by the type of resin cement.

J Adhes Dent 2003; 5: 153–162. Submitted for publication: 17.06.02; accepted for publication: 09.12.02.

osts and cores are often inserted in endodonti-
P cally treated teeth to provide retention and sta-
bility for a crown or a fixed partial denture. Various
a Dentist, Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Uni-
versity of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
b Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials, School of
Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
c Professor, Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry,
University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
d Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, School of
Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark.
Reprint requests: Dr. Alireza Sahafi, Department of Dental Materials,
School of Dentistry, University of Copenhagen, Nörre Allé 20,
DK-2200 Copenhagen N, Denmark. Telephone: +45-3532-6583, Fax:
+45-3532-6505. e-mail: ars@odont.ku.dk
types and designs of posts and cores are used, in-
cluding custom-made posts and cores, and prefab-
ricated posts with resin composite cores. Failure of
posts and cores usually has serious consequenc-
es. Reasons for failure are loss of retention, with
risk of caries development in the root canal and
fracture of the root, the post, or the core. Some of
these failures are related to the diameter, length,
and mechanical properties – such as stiffness and
flexural strength – of the post. Loss of retention of
posts has been found to be the most frequent
mode of failure, while root fracture is the most se-
rious type of failure.3,19,40,48,50 Studies have
shown that the retention of a post is influenced by
several factors pertaining to the post, the cement,
and the interaction between the cement and dentin
and between the cement and the post.

Vol 5, No 2, 2003 153

Sahafi et al
As far as the post is concerned, studies have dem-
onstrated that parameters such as length,20,32,38,42
diameter,32 design,11,33,37,39,41,48 and surface struc-
ture10,28,31,47 of the post as well as post materi-
al14,21,34 influence retention. Two groups of prefab-
ricated posts exist: metallic, such as stainless steel
and titanium alloy posts, which traditionally have been
luted with zinc phosphate cement, and nonmetallic,
such as posts of zirconia, carbon fiber or glass fiber,
which are intended to be adhesively bonded to the
root canal.
As far as the cement is concerned, the effect of
type of cement on retention of the post and on re-
sistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth
has been investigated extensively. In vitro and in
vivo studies have found the use of resin cement to
significantly increase post retention and fracture re-
sistance of the tooth as compared to zinc phos-
phate cement.14,16,49,53 Two types of resin ce-
ments exist: conventional bis-GMA-based resin ce-
ments and so-called adhesive cements containing
functional monomers with the ability of adhering to
restorative materials.27,29,34
The pretreatments studied have either been
mechanical (eg, sandblasting and silicate coat-
ing)5,23,29,35 or chemical in nature (eg, etching
with hydrofluoric acid and coating with prim-
ers).24,45,56 Sandblasting of dental restorations
with alumina particles is used to increase the
roughness of the surface and increase the surface
area. In the Cojet system (3M ESPE, Seefeld,
Germany), sandblasting is performed using sili-
cate-coated alumina particles.8 The high spot-heat
produced together with the blasting pressure re-
sult in welding the silicate layer onto the surface,15
and silanization enhances the bond strength of
resin cement to the treated surface. Etching with
hydrofluoric acid is intended to create microrough-
ening of the surface, which allows for a microme-
chanical interlocking of the resin cement to the
restoration.55 Primers have been introduced with
the purpose of creating a chemical adhesion of
resin-based materials to restorations. Silane is
used as a primer to improve adhesion of resin ce-
ment to silicate-based dental restorations, ie, por-
celain. Metal primers containing functional mono-
mers such as thiophosphoric methacrylate (MEPS)
or 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate
monomer (MDP) together with 6-[N-(4-vinylbenzyl)
propylamino]-1,3,5-triazine 2,4-dithione (VBATDT)45
are used to chemically bond resin cement to met-
al-based restorations.
154
Bonding of resin cement to a post and to dentin
has been speculated to reinforce the root and thus
to be useful in the treatment of weakened, endo-
dontically treated teeth.27,35 For new types of pre-
fabricated posts, only a few studies have investi-
gated the bond strength of different resin cements
to the pretreated posts. Furthermore, these stud-
ies include only a few types of posts, a few resin ce-
ments, or a few post pretreatments.8,23,29,34,35,45
It was hypothesized that the bond strength of
resin cement to prefabricated posts is influenced
by the material of the post, the surface treatment
of the post, and the type of resin cement, and fur-
ther, that the bond strength of resin cement to den-
tin is affected by the type of resin cement. The
aims of this in vitro study were (1) to investigate
the bond strength of two different resin cements to
posts of titanium alloy, glass fiber, and zirconia,
and to dentin, and (2) to study the effect of differ-
ent surface treatments of posts on the bond
strength.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three prefabricated posts – titanium alloy (Para-
Post XH), glass fiber (ParaPost Fiber White) and zir-
conia (Cerapost) – were used together with two res-
in cements: a conventional bis-GMA-based resin ce-
ment (ParaPost Cement) and an MDP-containing
resin cement (Panavia F). The composition of the in-
vestigated prefabricated posts and resin cements
and the respective manufacturers are listed in
Table 1. The surface treatments investigated and
manufacturers are listed in Table 2.
Shear Bond Strength to Posts
ParaPost XH posts (No. 6, diameter = 1.75 mm),
ParaPost Fiber White posts (No. 6, diameter =
1.75 mm), and Cerapost posts (No. 110, diameter
= 1.1 to 2.3 mm) were embedded in a cold curing
resin (Citofix, Struers, Rødovre, Denmark). After
setting, all specimens were wet ground (carborun-
dum paper # 220) until a planar surface with a min-
imum diameter of 1.5 mm was obtained. The spec-
imens were rinsed in deionized water for 20 s and
subjected to one of the surface treatments
(Table 2) or left untreated (ground, control). The
number of specimens for each surface treatment
was between nine and fourteen.
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
 Sahafi et al

Table 1 List of investigated prefabricated posts and resin cements

Post Composition according to manufacturer Manufacturer

ParaPost XH 90% titanium, 6% aluminum, 4% vanadium Coltène/Whaledent, Mahwah,

NJ, USA
ParaPost Fiber White 42% glass fiber, 29% resin, 29% filler Coltène/Whaledent
Cerapost 94.9% ZrO2, 5.1% Y2O3 Gebr. Brasseler, Lemgo, Germany

Resin cement Composition according to manufacturer Manufacturer

ParaPost Cement Bis-GMA, bis-EMA, TEGDMA, BPO, silanized barium glass, amor- Coltène/Whaledent
phous silica
ParaPost Cement, primer HEMA, BPO, maleic acid, glycerol mono- and dimethacrylate, meth- Coltène/Whaledent
acrylized polyalkenoate, ethanol, water
Panavia F Silanized barium glass, silanized silica, sodium fluoride, BPO, pho- Kuraray, Osaka, Japan
tosensitizer, 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP),
hydrophobic and hydrophilic dimethacrylate, bis-phenol A poly-
ethoxy dimethacrylate
ED primer 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP), HEMA, Kuraray
N-methacryl 5-aminosalicylic acid, sodium benzene sulfinate,
N,N-diethanol p-toluidine, water

Table 2 Surface treatments of posts

Surface treatment Composition Manufacturer Type of post

Grinding (control) XH, FW, CP

Sandblasting Alumina particles of 50 µm BEGO, Bremen, Germany XH, FW, CP
Etching with hydrofluoric acid 9.6% hydrofluoric acid Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA XH, FW, CP
Cojet Silicate-coated particles of 30 µm, silane 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany XH, FW, CP
Alloy Primer 6-[N-(4-vinylbenzyl)propylamino]-1,3,5-triazine Kuraray, Osaka, Japan XH
2,4-dithione (VBATDT), 10-methacryloyloxydecyl
dihydrogen phosphate (MDP), acetone
Metalprimer II Thiophosphoric methacrylate (MEPS) GC Dental, Aichi, Japan XH
Sandblasting and Alloy Primer Alumina particles of 50 µm and Alloy Primer XH
Sandblasting and Metalprimer II Alumina particles of 50 µm and Metalprimer II XH
Etching and Alloy Primer 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and Alloy Primer XH
Etching and Metalprimer II 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and Metalprimer II XH
Silane Silane Pulpdent FW, CP
Sandblasting and silane Alumina particles of 50 µm and silane FW, CP
Etching and silane 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and silane FW, CP

XH = ParaPost XH
FW = ParaPost Fiber White
CP = Cerapost

The surface treatments were planned with regard sulted in microroughening of the surface, ie, sand-
to the chemical properties and composition of the blasting with alumina particles and etching with hy-
posts, and fell into three different categories. The drofluoric acid. The second category consisted of
first category comprised surface treatments that re- surface treatments with so-called primers intended

Vol 5, No 2, 2003 155

Sahafi et al
to create chemical adhesion between the resin ce-
ment and the post. The third category of surface
treatments comprised treatments that had both a
roughening and a chemical component, obtained ei-
ther by combining two of the above-mentioned treat-
ments or by the unique Cojet system. This system
for intraoral repair is a modification of the Rocatec
system introduced in 1989 for laboratory use, and
they both involve sandblasting with silicate-coated
alumina particles followed by silanization.
The treatments were carried out as follows: Sand-
blasting was performed with an extraoral sandblast-
ing device (Basic duo, Renfert, Hilzingen, Germany)
at 4 bar for 10 s using alumina particles of 50 µm.
The sandblasting was performed perpendicular to
the exposed surface from a distance of 20 mm. The
specimens were ultrasonically cleaned in deionized
water for 2 min after the sandblasting. Fresh deion-
ized water was used for every experimental series.
Etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid (Porcelain Etch
Gel, Pulpdent Watertown, MA, USA) was carried out
for 2 min and followed by rinsing with deionized water
for 2 min. Cojet treatment consisted of air abrasion
with an intraoral sandblasting device (Dento-prep,
Rønvig, Daugaard, Denmark) at 4 bar for 10 s using
30 µm silicate-coated particles, followed by silane
coating with ESPE-sil (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany)
according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The
two metal primers, Alloy Primer and Metalprimer II,
were applied to the exposed surface of the post ac-
cording to the manufacturers’ instructions.
A split teflon mold with a cylindrical cavity (diam-
eter = 1 mm, height = 1.5 mm) was clamped to the
treated specimen. The cement was mixed according
to the manufacturer’s recommended procedure and
applied into the cavity. The dual-curing cement Pana-
via F was light cured for 20 s with a conventional unit
(XL 3000, 3M ESPE, St Paul, MN, USA). After 15 min
at room temperature, the bonded specimens were
freed from the mold and stored in water at 37°C for
7 days. The shear bond strengths were determined
in a Universal Testing Machine (Instron, High Wy-
combe, UK) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
Shear Bond Strength to Dentin
The shear bond strength to dentin of the two resin
cements with their respective adhesive systems
was investigated. Twenty extracted human maxillary
incisors were kept in an antimicrobial preservative
(0.5% chloramine T) after extraction. The teeth were
156
embedded in a cold curing resin (Citofix). After set-
ting, the specimens were wet ground (carborundum
paper # 220) until a planar dentin surface with a min-
imum diameter of 1.5 mm was exposed. The spec-
imens were rinsed in deionized water for 20 s and
randomly distributed into two groups, each consist-
ing of ten specimens. The dentin was treated with
the bonding system according to the manufacturers’
directions. Bond strength specimens were produced
and fractured in shear as described above.
Statistical Analysis
The statistical comparisons were performed sepa-
rately for each of the three posts and for dentin. Fur-
thermore, a comparison was made between the
eight mean bond strengths measured for ground
posts and for dentin. The standard deviations were
made homogeneous by an empirical transformation
of all single bond strength values (x) to ln (x+8).17
New mean values and standard deviations were cal-
culated and used for the subsequent statistical
analyses. For each of the five statistical analyses,
Bartlett’s tests18 did not find the transformed stan-
dard deviations to differ statistically significantly,
thereby allowing the use of parametric statistical
methods. Consequently, the transformed mean val-
ues in the four groups involving posts were com-
pared by analysis of variance, and in case of signif-
icant differences, by Newman-Keuls’ multiple range
test.4 In the fifth group involving dentin, the two
mean values were compared by Student’s t-test.
The level of significance used was p = 0.05.
RESULTS
Shear Bond Strength to ParaPost XH
The results are presented in Table 3. The statistical
analysis showed that there were significant differ-
ences in bond strength between the ground (con-
trol) posts and the surface-treated posts. In the
ParaPost Cement group, all surface treatments im-
proved the bond strength compared to the control,
but did so to different degrees. Cojet treatment
yielded the significantly greatest improvement in
bond strength, while etching with hydrofluoric acid
resulted in the smallest improvement. The remain-
ing seven surface treatments improved the bond
strength to the same degree. In the Panavia F
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
 Sahafi et al

Table 3 Shear bond strength (MPa) of resin cements to ParaPost XH with and without surface treatment*

Surface treatment Resin cement

ParaPost Cement Panavia F

Grinding (control) 2.3 ± 2.2 a 12.8 ± 4.0 b, c

Sandblasting 15.7 ± 5.2 c,d,e 29.4 ± 9.5 g
Etching with hydrofluoric acid 9.5 ± 3.9 b 18.2 ± 7.8 c,d,e
Alloy Primer 20.5 ± 7.5 c,d,e,f 17.4 ± 6.1 c,d,e
Metalprimer II 13.8 ± 8.2 b,c,d 29.3 ± 7.1 f, g
Cojet treatment 36.7 ± 10.1 g 21.8 ± 8.4 c,d,e,f
Sandblasting + coating with Alloy Primer 21.2 ± 6.8 c,d,e,f 25.9 ± 9.1 e, f
Sandblasting + coating with Metalprimer II 17.9 ± 6.7 c,d,e 21.0 ± 8.6 c,d,e,f
Etching with hydrofluoric acid + coating with Alloy Primer 19.5 ± 5.9 c,d,e,f 18.5 ± 4.5 c,d,e
Etching with hydrofluoric acid + coating with Metalprimer II 22.6 ± 8.0 d,e,f 20.4 ± 7.2 c,d,e,f

*Shear bond strength shown as mean ± SD (n = 9 to 14). Mean values designated with the same superscript letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05).

Table 4 Shear bond strength (MPa) of resin cements to ParaPost Fiber White with and without surface
treatment *
Surface treatment Resin cements
ParaPost Cement Panavia F

Grinding (control) 14.2 ± 6.0 a, b 10.8 ± 5.9 a

Sandblasting 26.7 ± 8.2 c, d 19.3 ± 6.5 b, c
Etching with hydrofluoric acid 10.7 ± 1.7 a 10.0 ± 3.5 a
Silane treatment 15.2 ± 4.5 a, b 12.9 ± 3.1 a, b
Cojet treatment 29.4 ± 8.9 d, e 15.0 ± 4.2 a, b
Sandblasting + silane treatment 34.3 ± 8.5 e 22.2 ± 3.8 c, d
Etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane treatment 16.2 ± 7.0 a, b 13.1 ± 3.5 a, b

*Shear bond strength shown as mean ± SD (n = 9 to 14). Mean values designated with the same superscript letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05).

group, six of the surface treatments did not signifi-
cantly improve the bond strength to ParaPost XH.
However, sandblasting, coating with Metalprimer II,
and sandblasting followed by coating with Alloy
Primer resulted in significant improvements in bond
strength compared to ground posts.
Significant differences in bond strength were
found between the two resin cements. The bond
strength of Panavia F to ground ParaPost XH posts
was significantly higher than the bond strength of
ParaPost Cement to ground ParaPost XH posts. Sig-
nificant differences in bond strength were also ob-
tained between the two resin cements in four of the
surface-treated groups. While Cojet treatment pro-
vided a significantly higher bond strength when used
with ParaPost Cement, sandblasting, etching with hy-
drofluoric acid, and coating with Metalprimer II gave
higher bond strengths when used with Panavia F.
Shear Bond Strength to ParaPost Fiber White
The results are presented in Table 4. The statistical
analysis showed that three of the six surface treat-
ments significantly increased the bond strength of
ParaPost Cement to ParaPost Fiber White posts.
Thus, sandblasting, Cojet treatment and, most of
all, sandblasting followed by silane coating signifi-
cantly improved the bond strength compared to
ground posts. In the Panavia F group, two of the six

Vol 5, No 2, 2003 157

Sahafi et al

Table 5 Shear bond strength (MPa) of resin cements to Cerapost with and without surface treatment *

Surface treatment Resin cement

ParaPost Cement Panavia F

Grinding (control) 1.2 ± 1.7 a 10.9 ± 6.3 b

Sandblasting 6.7 ± 3.5 b 27.2 ± 10.5 d
Etching with hydrofluoric acid 1.5 ± 2.3 a 1.7 ± 1.8 a
Silane treatment 2.8 ± 3.9 a 17.1 ± 7.3 c
Cojet treatment 32.3 ± 10.4 d 27.9 ± 8.3 d
Sandblasting + silane treatment 10.2 ± 4.4 b 17.9 ± 7.8 c
Etching with hydrofluoric acid + silane treatment 9.8 ± 5.9 b 3.4 ± 3.1 a

*Shear bond strength shown as mean ± SD (n = 9 to 14). Mean values designated with the same superscript letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05).

surface treatments – sandblasting and sandblast-
ing followed by silane coating – resulted in signifi-
cantly higher bond strengths.
There was no significant difference in bond
strength between the two resin cements for the
controls and for four of the surface treatments. Co-
jet treatment and sandblasting followed by silane
coating yielded higher bond strengths with Para-
Post Cement than with Panavia F.
Shear Bond Strength to Cerapost
The results are presented in Table 5. The statistical
analysis showed that when ParaPost Cement was
used, four of the six surface treatments increased
the bond strength as compared to the ground posts.
Cojet treatment resulted in the biggest improve-
ment in bond strength. Compared to the control, the
bond strength of Panavia F to Cerapost significantly
decreased when two of the surface treatments
(etching with hydrofluoric acid with and without si-
lane treatment) were used, while the four other sur-
face treatments increased the bond strength signif-
icantly. Sandblasting and Cojet treatment gave the
highest bond strengths.
Significant differences in bond strength were
found between the two resin cements. The bond
strength of Panavia F to ground Cerapost posts was
significantly higher than the bond strength of Para-
Post Cement. Significant differences between the
two cements were also found for four of the six sur-
face treatments. While sandblasting, silane treat-
ment, and sandblasting followed by silane treat-
ment produced significantly higher bond strengths
when Panavia F was used, etching with hydrofluoric
acid followed by silane treatment resulted in a high-
er bond strength when ParaPost Cement was used.
Shear Bond Strength to Dentin
The results are presented in Table 6. The statistical
analysis found the bond strength of Panavia F to
dentin to be significantly higher than the bond
strength of ParaPost Cement to dentin.
Shear Bond Strength to Dentin and Ground Posts
The bond strength of ParaPost Cement to ParaPost
Fiber White and to dentin was significantly higher
than the bond strength of ParaPost Cement to Para-
Post XH and to Cerapost. For Panavia F, the bond
strength to dentin was significantly higher than the
bond strength to the three ground posts. No differ-
ences were found between the three ground posts.
Furthermore, Panavia F produced higher bond
strengths than did ParaPost Cement, except to
ParaPost Fiber White.
DISCUSSION
The hypotheses of this study were confirmed. The
results showed that the bond strength of resin ce-

158 The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry


Table 6 Shear bond strength (MPa) of resin cements to dentin*
Surface treatment
Dentin treated according to manufacturer’s instructions
*Shear bond strength shown as mean ± SD (n = 10). Mean values designated with the same superscript letter are not statistically different (p > 0.05).
ment to prefabricated posts was affected by the
resin cement, the material of post, and the surface
treatment. Furthermore, the bond strength of resin
cements to dentin was affected by the resin ce-
ment used.
Regarding the bond to posts that had received no
surface treatment apart from grinding, there was a
fundamental difference between the two resin ce-
ments. Whereas Panavia F generally bonded well to
all three types of posts, ParaPost Cement bonded
well only to ParaPost Fiber White. The ability of
Panavia F to bond equally well to all three post ma-
terials when these were ground may be explained
by the presence of the adhesive monomer MDP, and
it corroborates the findings of numerous stud-
ies.7,9,29,34 The glass fiber post (ParaPost Fiber
White) is composed of 42% glass fiber, 29% resin,
and 29% filler. The fact that ParaPost Cement bond-
ed better to ParaPost Fiber White than to ParaPost
XH and Cerapost may be due to chemical adhesion
between the resin contained in ParaPost Cement
and the resin present between fibers in ParaPost Fi-
ber White. There is a dearth of information in the
literature regarding bond strength of resin cements
to glass fiber posts. However, in a study of intermit-
tent loading of teeth, Mannocci et al25 demonstrat-
ed a significantly higher survival rate of quartz fiber
posts than of zirconia posts due to adhesion be-
tween the quartz fiber post and resin cement.
There was a marked difference in the effect of
the two microroughening methods tested: Sand-
blasting improved bond strength significantly in all
cases compared to ground posts, whereas hydro-
fluoric acid etching had varying effects on bond
strength. The positive results obtained with sand-
blasting are supported by the studies of Miller et
al,29 Kern et al,23,24 and O’Keefe et al.35 Sand-
blasting with alumina particles changes the struc-
ture of the surface by a plastic deformation and
Vol 5, No 2, 2003
Sahafi et al
Resin cement
ParaPost Cement Panavia F
9.6 ± 5.3 a 28.2 ± 11.1 b
roughening, resulting in an increased surface area
23,26 and a volume loss of the material.23 Sand-
blasting was an effective method of improving the
bond strength between resin cement and post, but
did not increase the bond strength of resin cement
to the same level for all post materials. This result
is supported by the studies of Miller et al29 and
O’Keefe et al.34
The purpose of etching dental restorations with
acid is to create a roughening of the restoration sur-
face, which enhances mechanical interlocking be-
tween the restoration and the cement. By applica-
tion of hydrofluoric acid to porcelain, selective etch-
ing of certain phases of the porcelain is obtained,
and hydrofluoric acid etching has been found to im-
prove the bond strength of resin to conventional sil-
icate-based ceramics.43,55 The effect of etching zir-
conia has also been investigated, and most studies
have failed to show a positive effect on the bond
strength.12,24,34,43 In the present study, hydrofluo-
ric acid etching improved the bond strength of resin
cement to ParaPost XH. ParaPost XH consists of a
two-phased alloy,54 which is chemically stable due
to a protective oxide film on the surface.30 Hydrof-
luoric acid has been reported to destroy the protec-
tive oxide film on the surface and to result in corro-
sion of titanium30 and in pitting of the surface.36,57
Hydrofluoric acid may also be speculated to selec-
tively etch one of the titanium phases and thereby
create irregularities in the surface. Retention of res-
in cement in these irregularities may explain the im-
proved bond strength of resin cement to ParaPost
XH posts treated with hydrofluoric acid.
Whereas etching had a positive effect on the
bond strength to ParaPost XH, etching had no ef-
fect on ParaPost Fiber White, and no or even a neg-
ative effect on Cerapost. Thus, when used with
Panavia F, the bond strength to Cerapost de-
creased following etching as compared to the
159
Sahafi et al
ground control posts. Etching with hydrofluoric acid
has previously been found to negatively influence
the bond strength between resin material and com-
posite inlays.6,13 The negative influence has been
explained by a destructive effect of the hydrofluoric
acid on the topography created by the preceding
mechanical treatment 6,13 and by a possible detri-
mental effect on the resin cements of surface-held
acid remnants.2 It can be speculated that the neg-
ative effect of hydrofluoric acid etching on the bond
strength of Panavia F to Cerapost is due to one or
both of said effects.
The present study showed that the use of metal
primers increased the bond strength of resin ce-
ments to a titanium alloy surface. While there was
no difference between the two primers when Para-
Post Cement was used, Metalprimer II proved supe-
rior to Alloy Primer when Panavia F was used. Metal
primers containing MEPS or VBATDT and MDP have
previously been shown to improve the bond
strength of resin cement to titanium.45 Titanium is
a base metal, the surface of which is covered with
a passive layer of metallic oxides.45 Experiments
have shown that the functional monomer in Alloy
Primer, VBATDT, has an affinity to noble metals but
not to base metals.1,52 This finding explains the
fact that the VBATDT monomer did not influence the
adhesive bonding between Panavia F and the titani-
um alloy post, ParaPost XH.45 Alloy Primer did not
result in higher bond strength with Panavia F than
with ParaPost Cement. This is most likely due to
the content of MDP in Alloy Primer, which apparent-
ly is as effective as the MDP contained in Panavia
F. The improved bond strength of Panavia F to the
Metalprimer II-treated titanium alloy posts is sup-
ported by the results of Taira et al.46 These authors
suggested that the improved bond strength is due
to a reaction of the MDP present in Panavia F and
the MEPS present in Metalprimer II with the oxide
layer on the titanium alloy surface.46
Application of silane did not enhance the bond
strength of ParaPost Cement to ParaPost Fiber
White or Cerapost. The inefficacy of silane treat-
ment on bond strength may be explained by a very
weak or absent bond of the functional group of the
silane – the silanol – to nonsilicate-based materi-
als.6,24,44 The present study is in accordance with
the studies of Kern et al24 and Cesar et al.6
Cojet treatment was an effective method for im-
proving the bond strength of resin cements to
posts but did not increase the bond strength of res-
in cement to the same level for all types of posts.
160
Increased bond strength of a bis-GMA-based resin
cement to Cojet-treated titanium and zirconia posts
compared to only sandblasting has been reported
by Kern et al22 and Cobb et al,8 and is generally in
accordance with the results obtained with ParaPost
Cement in the present study. However, when Pana-
via F was used, the Cojet treatment did not result
in higher bond strengths than did sandblasting. The
lack of a positive influence of silicate treatment on
the bond strength of Panavia F is supported by
O’Keefe et al.35 The difference in the effect of Cojet
treatment between Panavia F and ParaPost Cement
bonded to ParaPost XH post has been explained by
the fact that Panavia F was designed to bond to
nonsilanized metal oxides.51 Cojet treatment sup-
plies the surface of the posts with a silanized layer,
which may have hindered the adhesive monomer of
Panavia F (MDP) in reacting chemically with the
metal ions.
With the exception of Panavia F bonded to
etched and silane-treated Cerapost, the combina-
tions of sandblasting or etching followed by coating
with primers improved the bond strength of resin
cement as compared to ground posts. However,
these combined treatments did not significantly im-
prove the bond strength compared to the other sur-
face treatments. The combination of micromechan-
ical treatment and chemical treatment of the posts
was tested to compare the effect of these treat-
ments on bond strength with that of micromechan-
ical or chemical treatment alone. In some cases it
is possible to explain the changes in bond strength
found when two surface treatments were com-
bined. For example, the decrease in bond strength
of Panavia F obtained when Metalprimer II was ap-
plied to sandblasted titanium posts may be the re-
sult of the sandblasting removing or reducing the
oxide layer on the surface of the post. The de-
creased oxide layer influenced the adhesive reac-
tion of MEPS, which resulted in a lower bond
strength of Panavia F to the post. In other cases, a
satisfying explanation is difficult to give at the
present time.
The statistical analysis showed a significantly
higher bond strength of Panavia F to dentin than of
ParaPost Cement to dentin. This finding is in agree-
ment with several other studies.7,9,27,35 The differ-
ences in bond strength of these two cements may
be due to differences between the primers or to dif-
ferences in chemical composition of the cements.
In order to obtain a well-defined bonding area,
bond strength testing usually requires grinding of
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry

the substrate surface. In the present study, this im-
plied that the original surface of the posts was re-
moved, and bonding was obtained to the core of the
post. The effects of surface treatments and of resin
cements on the adhesion to the different posts may
be different clinically than in an in vitro study due to
influences from the original surface structure. Bond
strength of resin cements to the intact surfaces of
the posts and the effect of surface treatment on the
original post surfaces need further study. Studies of
the durability of bonding have shown that especially
bonds to zirconia are unstable.22,24 Thus, studies
of the effect of the long-term water storage or arti-
ficial aging on the bond strengths of the present
study are warranted.
Another limitation of the applied model is the
small bonding area (1 mm in diameter), dictated by
the diameter of the posts, which made difficult the
application of resin cement into the cavity of the te-
flon mold and increased the risk of air voids.
Within the limitations of the present study mod-
el, the following conclusions can be drawn:
– Panavia F showed higher bond strength to ground
ParaPost XH and Cerapost than did ParaPost Ce-
ment.
– For all three types of posts, the bond strength of
resin cement could be improved by surface treat-
ment.
– Generally, Cojet treatment and sandblasting were
the most effective pretreatments.
– Etching of ParaPost Fiber White and especially of
Cerapost with hydrofluoric acid cannot be recom-
mended.
– Panavia F showed higher bond strength to dentin
than did ParaPost Cement.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge the support of Coltène/
Whaledent, Gebr. Brasseler, RH Dental, Kuraray, 3M ESPE, and
GC Dental through donation of materials, and FUT/Calcin and
Dansk Tandlægeforenings Forskningsudvalg for financial sup-
port of this study. Special thanks are due to associate profes-
sor Jørgen Hilden, Department of Biostatistics, University of
Copenhagen, for statistical support.
REFERENCES
1. Antoniadou M, Kern M, Strub JR. Effect of a new metal primer
on the bond strength between a resin cement and two
high-noble alloys. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:554-560.
Vol 5, No 2, 2003
Sahafi et al
2. Asmussen E. Bonding of resin cements to AllCeram. Tand-
laegebladet 1997;18:982-985.
3. Bergman B, Lundquist P, Sjögren U, Sundquist G. Restorative
and endodontic results after treatment with cast posts and
cores. J Prosthet Dent 1989;61:10-15.
4. Bruning JL, Kintz BL. Computational handbook of statistics,
4th ed. Reading: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers,
1997.
5. Caeg C, Leinfelder KF, Lacefield WR, Bell W. Effectiveness
of a method used in bonding resins to metal. J Prosthet Dent
1990;64:37-41.
6. Cesar PF, Faara PMM, Caldart RM, Jager RG, Ribeiro FC. Ten-
sile bond strength of composite repairs on Artglass using dif-
ferent surface treatments. Am J Dent 2001;14:373-377.
7. Chan FW, Harcourt JK, Brockhurst PJ. The effect of post ad-
aptation in the root canal on retention of posts cemented
with various cements. Aust Dent J 1993;38:39-45.
8. Cobb DS, Vargas MA, Fridrich TA, Bouschlicher MR. Metal sur-
face treatment: Characterization and effect on compos-
ite-to-metal bond strength. Oper Dent 2000;25:427-433.
9. Cohen BI, Condos S, Deutsch AS, Musikant BL. Retentive
properties of threaded split post with attachment sleeves ce-
mented with various luting agents. J Prosthet Dent 1993;
69:149-154.
10. Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS.
Retention of four endodontic posts cemented with composite
resin. Gen Dent 2000;48:320-324.
11. Colley IT, Hampson EL, Lehman ML. Retention of post
crowns. An assessment of relative efficiency of posts of dif-
ferent shape and sizes. Br Dent J 1968;124:63-69.
12. Dérand P, Dérand T. Bond strength of luting cements to zir-
conium oxide ceramics. Int J Prosthodont 2000;13:131-135.
13. Ejersbo M, Peutzfeldt A. Binding mellem plastindlæg og plast-
cement. Tandlaegebladet 1994;7:339-340.
14. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcia-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fi-
ber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. J
Am Dent 2000;13:15B-18B.
15. Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Sindel J. Repair strength of
etched vs silica-coated metal-ceramic and all-ceramic resto-
rations. Oper Dent 2000;25:209-215.
16. Goldstein GR, Hudis SI, Weintraub DE. Comparison of four
techniques for the cementation of posts. J Prosthet Dent
1986;55:209-211.
17. Hald A. Statistical theory with engineering applications. New
York: Wiley International Edition 1952;174-175.
18. Hald A. Statistical theory with engineering applications. New
York: Wiley International Edition 1952;290-291.
19. Hatzikyriakos AH, Reisis GI, Tsingos N. A 3-year post opera-
tive clinical evaluation of posts and cores beneath existing
crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1992;67:454-458.
20. Isidor F, Brøndum K, Ravnholt G. The influence of post length
and the crown ferrule length on the resistance to cyclic load-
ing of bovine teeth with prefabricated titanium posts. Int J
Prosthodont 1999;12:78-82.
21. Isidor F, Ödman P, Brøndum K. Intermittent loading of teeth
restored using prefabricated carbon fiber posts. Int J Pros-
thodont 1996;9:131-136.
22. Kern M, Thompson VP. Durability of resin bonds to pure tita-
nium. J Prosthodont 1995;4:16-22.
23. Kern M, Thompson VP. Effects of sandblasting and silica-coat-
ing procedures on pure titanium. J Dent 1994;22:300-306.
161
Sahafi et al
24. Kern M, Wegner SM. Bonding to zirconia ceramic: adhesion
methods and their durability. Dent Mater 1998;14:64-71.
25. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of
teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber and zir-
conium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent 1999;
2:153-158.
26. Masami M, Fukui H, Hasegawa J. Relationship between sand-
blasting and composite resin-alloy bond strength by a silica
coating. J Prosthet Dent 1995;74:151-155.
27. Mendoza DB, Eakle SW, Kahl EA, Ho R. Root reinforcement
with a resin-bonded preformed post. J Prosthet Dent 1997;
78:10-14.
28. Miller AW. Post and core systems: Which one is best? J Pros-
thet Dent 1982;48:27-38.
29. Miller BH, Nakajima H, Powers JM, Nunn ME. Bond strength
between cements and metals used for endodontic posts.
Dent Mater 1998;14:312-320.
30. Nakagawa M, Matsuya S, Shiraishi T, Ohta M. Effect of fluo-
ride concentration and pH on corrosion behavior of titanium
for dental use. J Dent Res 1999;78:1568-1572.
31. Nergiz I, Schmage P, Platzer U, McMullan-Vogel CG. Effect of
different surface textures on retentive strength of tapered
posts. J Prosthet Dent 1997;78:451-457.
32. Nergiz I, Schmage P, Özcan M, Platzer U. Effect of length and
diameter of tapered posts on the retention. J Oral Rehabil
2002;29:28-34.
33. Newburg DR, Pameijer CH. Retentive properties of post and
core systems. J Prosthet Dent 1976;36:636-643.
34. O’Keefe KL, Miller BH, Powers JM. In vitro tensile bond
strength of adhesive cements to new post materials. Int J
Prosthodont 2000;13:47-51.
35. O’Keefe KL, Powers JM, McGuckin RS, Pierpont HP. In vitro
bond strength of silica-coated metal posts in roots of teeth.
Int J Prosthodont 1992;5:373-376.
36. Reclaru L, Meyer JM. Effects of fluorides on titanium and oth-
er dental alloys in dentistry. Biomater 1998;19:85-92.
37. Ruemping DR, Lund ER, Schnell RJ. Retention of dowel sub-
jected to tensile and torsional forces. J Prosthet Dent 1979;
41:159-162.
38. Sokol DJ. Effective use of current core and post concepts. J
Prosthet Dent 1984;52:231-234.
39. Sorensen JA, Engelman MJ. Effect of post adaptation on frac-
ture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Prosthet
Dent 1990;64:419-424.
40. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dow-
el design. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:28-35.
41. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Hanson EC. Retention of endodontic
dowels: Effects of cement, dowel length, diameter, and de-
sign. J Prosthet Dent 1978;39:400-405.
162
42. Standlee JP, Caputo AA, Holcomb J, Trabert KC. The retentive
and stress distributing properties of a threaded endodontic
dowel. J Prosthet Dent 1980;44:398-404.
43. Stangel I, Nathanson D, Hsu CS. Shear strength of the com-
posite bond to etched porcelain. J Dent Res 1987;66:
1460-1465.
44. Söderholm KJM, Shang SW. Molecular orientation of silane
at the surface of colloidal silica. J Dent Res 1993;72:
1050-1054.
45. Taira Y, Yanagida H, Matsumura H, Yoshida K, Atsuta M, Su-
zuki S. Adhesive bonding of titanium with a thione-phosphate
dual functional primer and self-curing luting agents. Eur J Oral
Sci 2000;108:456-460.
46. Taira Y, Yoshida K, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Phosphate and
thiophosphate primers for bonding prosthodontic luting ma-
terials to titanium. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:384-388.
47. Tilk MA, Lommel TJ, Gerstein H. A study of mandibular and
maxillary root widths to determine dowel size. J Endod 1979;
5:79-82.
48. Torbjörner A, Karlsson S, Ödman PA. Survival rate and failure
characteristics for two post designs. J Prosthet Dent 1995;
73:439-444.
49. Trope M, Maltz DO, Tronstad L. Resistance to fracture of re-
stored endodontically treated teeth. Endod Dent Traumatol
1985;1:108-111.
50. Turner CH. Post-retained crown failure: A survey. Dent Update
1982;9:221-234.
51. Watanabe F, Powers JM, Lorey RE. In vitro bonding of pros-
thodontic adhesives to dental alloy. J Dent Res 1988;67:
479-483.
52. Watanabe I, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Effect of two metal prim-
ers on adhesive bonding with type IV gold alloys. J Prosthet
Dent 1995;73:299-303.
53. Wendt Jr SL, Harris BM, Hunt TE. Resistance to cusp fracture
in endodontically treated teeth. Dent Mater 1987;3:
232-235.
54. Wirz J, Bischoff H. Titan in der Zahnmedizin. Berlin: Quintes-
senz, 1997.
55. Wolf D, Powers JM, O’Keefe KL. Bond strength of composite
to etched and sandblasted porcelain. Am J Dent 1993;6:
155-158.
56. Yangida H, Matsumura H, Atsuta M. Bonding of prosthetic
composite material to Ti-6Al-7Nb alloy with eight metal con-
ditioners and a surface modification technique. Am J Dent
2001;14:291-294.
57. Zavanelli RA, Pessanha Henriques GE, Ferreira I, De Almeida
Rollo JM. Corrosion-fatigue life of commercially pure titanium
and Ti-6Al-4V alloys in different storage environments. J Pros-
thet Dent 2000;84:274-279.
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry