Basic Research—Technology
Application of Resin Adhesive on the Surface of a Silanized
Glass Fiber–reinforced Post and Its Effect on the Retention
to Root Dentin
Fernanda Weingartner Machado, DDS,* Mayara Bossardi, DDS,†
Tatiana dos Santos Ramos, BS, MSc,† Lisia Lorea Valente, DDS, MSc,*
unchow, DDS, MSc,* and Evandro Piva, DDS, MSc*†
Eliseu Aldrighi M€
Abstract
Introduction: In this study, the effect of different post
surface treatments on the retention of glass fiber–rein-
forced post to root dentin was evaluated. The hypothe-
ses tested were (1) post silanization would not improve
its retention and (2) the application of silane plus resin
adhesive on the post would enhance its retention.
Methods: After root canal preparation, 4 different pro-
tocols (n = 5) of post surface treatment were evaluated,
combined with or without silane (Silane coupling agent)
and adhesive (Scotchbond Multipurpose): silane + adhe-
sive (S/A), only silane, only adhesive, or no treatment
(control). RelyX ARC was used for post cementation.
Next, specimens were subjected to push-out bond
strength testing, and data were analyzed by two-way
analysis of variance and Tukey test (P < .05). Results:
S/A showed higher bond strength than other protocols
in the middle and coronal root regions (P < .001).
Only silane did not enhance post retention compared
with control (P > .05). The root dentin region influenced
bond strength results only in the S/A group. Conclu-
sions: Whereas silanization as the only post surface
treatment did not improve retention, the combination
of silane plus resin adhesive enhanced post retention
to dentin in the middle and coronal root regions. (J En-
dod 2015;41:106–110)
Key Words
Push-out test, root canal, silanization, surface treatment
From the *Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of
Dentistry, Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, Rio Grande
do Sul, Brazil; and †Control and Developmental Center of Bio-
materials (CDC-Bio), Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas,
Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Address requests for reprints to Dr Eliseu Aldrighi
M€unchow, Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry,
Federal University of Pelotas, Pelotas, RS, Brazil 96015-560.
E-mail address: eliseumunchow@gmail.com
0099-2399/$ - see front matter
Copyright ª 2015 American Association of Endodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.014
106 Machado et al.
W hen endodontically treated teeth need extensive restoration, post systems are
normally used to aid retention of the restorative material (1). Among the
different types of posts available, glass fiber–reinforced (GFR) posts are the most com-
mon choice because they may be adhesively bonded to the root canal, contributing to
the formation of a homogeneous root-cement-post system, which in this case is known
as a tertiary monoblock (2). Nevertheless, because of their highly cross-linked epoxy
resin-based structure, GFR posts need to be superficially treated (activated) to
improve their chemical interaction with resin materials (eg, resin cements, resin com-
posites).
Within the several pretreatment methods for surface activation of GFR posts, the
application of silane (silanization) is by far the most frequent procedure used (3). Si-
lanes are coupling agents that can interact with both organic (resin) and inorganic
(glass) phases; however, they have little ability to react with epoxy resin-based posts
(4) and also great possibility to undergo hydrolysis, weakening their coupling stability
(5). Consequently, studies diverge about the real benefit of silanization in improving
post retention (6–11); therefore, other substances have currently been investigated,
such as resin adhesives (12), acid solutions (13–15), and hydrogen peroxide
agents (16–18). Among these alternatives, the application of bleaching agents
reached positive results (17, 18), although there is a lack of information about the
negative effects on the post structure that may occur.
Irrespective of the surface pretreatment applied, failures of GFR posts frequently
result in debonding or fracture, with the post-cement interface being the weakest link of
the system (19). This may occur because of several factors such as the type of cement
used (regular or self-adhesive) (3), inherent polymerization shrinkage of resin ce-
ments, and the high C factor of root canals (20, 21). In addition, the presence of
remaining water may hamper the satisfactory interaction between post and cement
(22). Moreover, resin cements have heterogeneous composition, which may poorly
adhere to the silanized post surface because a highly hydrophobic surface is achieved
(23). Thus, considering that hydrophobic resin adhesives have a more stable chemical
composition (24), silanized GFR posts could be coated with an adhesive layer before
application of the luting material, which in theory would enhance the interaction be-
tween post and cement and therefore enhance post retention to the root canal dentin.
Hence, the aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of applying
silane plus adhesive as surface pretreatment of a GFR post on its retention to the
root dentin. Two hypotheses were tested: (1) application of silane without a further
resin adhesive layer would not improve post retention to root dentin, and (2) appli-
cation of silane plus adhesive on the post surface would enhance its retention to
root dentin.
Materials and Methods
Specimen Preparation
Twenty bovine incisors were obtained and cleaned in an aqueous solution of 0.5%
chloramine-T for 1 week; next, they were kept in distilled water at –4
C until they were
used (no longer than 2 months after extraction). The crowns were then removed at the
JOE — Volume 41, Number 1, January 2015

cement-enamel junction with a water-cooled low-speed diamond saw
(Isomet 1000; Buehler Ltd, Lake Bluff, IL) to obtain 15.0-mm-long
roots. These were endodontically treated by the same operator by the
crown-down instrumentation technique by using Gates Glidden (Union
Broach, York, PA) #4 and #5 drills and 45–80 K-files in increasing
order for instrumentation. Root canals were irrigated between each in-
strument by using 2.5% solution of sodium hypochlorite and 24% Tris-
sodium EDTA (Biodin^amica, Ibipor~a, PR, Brazil) as irrigants. Canal
preparation was performed at a working length of 1.0 mm short of
the apex. After final irrigation, root canals were completely dried with
absorbent paper points and filled with Tanari (Tanari Industrial, Man-
acapuru, AM, Brazil) gutta-percha and endodontic sealer (Sealer 26;
Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The cervical openings of
the root canals were then sealed with a eugenol-free provisional restor-
ative material (Coltosol; Coltene, Altst€atten, Switzerland), and the spec-
imens were stored in 100% humidity in black film containers at 37
C
for 7 days.
The post holes were prepared to depths of 11.0 mm from the
cement-enamel junction by removing gutta-percha with Gates Glidden
drills, leaving an apical seal of 4.0 mm. Each root was then instru-
mented with the drill matching the selected post (Exacto #3; Angelus,
Londrina, PR, Brazil), flushed with distilled water, and dried with pa-
per points.
Post Surface Pretreatment: Division of the Groups
Four different protocols (n = 5) of post surface pretreatment were
evaluated in this study by applying silane (Silane coupling agent; Dents-
ply Ind e Com Ltda, Petropolis, RJ, Brazil) and/or a hydrophobic un-
filled resin adhesive (Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus Adhesive; 3M
ESPE, St Paul, MN) (Table 1): group S/A: a single layer of silane plus
a single layer of adhesive were separately applied on the post surface;
each material was applied in accordance with the manufacturer’s in-
structions (Table 1); group S: only a single layer of silane was applied
on the post surface (positive control); group A: only a single layer of
adhesive was applied on the post surface; and group C: no pretreatment
(negative control).
Before division of the groups, all GFR posts were wiped with
alcohol, in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommendation.
TABLE 1. Materials Used in the Study
Material (manufacturer) Lot number
Silane Coupling Agent (Dentsply International) 416214
Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus Adhesive (3M ESPE) 8RH
Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus System (3M ESPE) 8RH
RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) N336986
Sealer 26 (Dentsply Maillefer) 688703E
JOE — Volume 41, Number 1, January 2015
Basic Research—Technology
Post Cementation
The post cementation procedure was equally performed for all
groups. First, the adhesive system (Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus Sys-
tem) was applied according to the manufacturer’s instructions for use
(Table 1). The resin cement (RelyX ARC; 3M ESPE) was then manipu-
lated and applied on the post surface with a disposable brush and also in
the root canal by using a lentulo/paste carrier (Dentsply Maillefer) drill.
The posts were inserted into the canal with slight pressure, and excess
luting material was removed with a disposable brush. Once the post was
luted, the cement was light-activated from the top of the post with a light-
emitting diode light-curing unit for 60 seconds. Finally, the specimens
were stored in 100% humidity in black film containers at 37
C for
7 days.
Push-out Bond Strength Test
Specimens were inserted into acrylic resin blocks with the tooth/
post extruding from the block horizontally (25) and then transversely
sectioned by using the aforementioned diamond saw, resulting in 1.0-
mm-thick slices from the apical, middle, and coronal root regions
(Fig. 1). Diameter and thickness measurements were obtained by using
a stereomicroscope and digital micrometer (Mitutoyo, Santo Amaro,
SP, Brazil) with 0.01-mm accuracy. All sections were likewise checked
for potential artifacts caused by the cutting process; however, no arti-
facts were observed.
Subsequently, each slice was submitted to the push-out bond
strength test (DL500; EMIC, S~ao Jose dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil), with
the load applied in the apical-coronal direction at a crosshead speed
of 1 mm/min until the post was dislodged. The maximum load at failure
was recorded in newtons (N) and converted into megapascals (MPa) by
dividing the load applied by the bonded area (A), calculated by using the
following formula:
2
A ¼ pðr þ RÞh2 þ ðR  rÞ
where r and R are the smallest and the largest radius, respectively,
of the cross-sectioned tapered post, and h is the thickness of the
section (4).
Instructions for use
Mix the primer and activator solutions for 10–15 seconds.
Wait 5 minutes. Apply the mixture over the post surface.
Dry with a slight airstream. Repeat the mixture
application and drying process.
Apply the adhesive to the post and light-cure for
10 seconds.
Etching: Apply Scotchbond etchant to the prepared
tooth. Wait 15 seconds. Rinse for 15 seconds. Dry for
2 seconds. Use a paper point to remove any excess water
in the canal.
Activation: Apply Scotchbond Multipurpose plus
activator to the canal by using paper point. Dry for
5 seconds.
Priming: Apply Scotchbond Multipurpose plus primer
to the canal by using a paper point. Dry for 5 seconds.
Catalyst: Apply Scotchbond Multipurpose plus catalyst to
the canal by using a paper point. Apply a coating of the
catalyst to the post.
Dispense appropriate amount of cement onto a mixing pad
and mix for 10 seconds.
Prepare the powder and resin components following the
proportion of approximately 2–3 parts of powder to
1 part resin per volume. Manipulate the powder and
resin until a smooth and consistent mix is obtained.
Silane and Adhesive as Post Surface Treatment 107
Basic Research—Technology
Figure 1. Graphic illustration of cutting sequence followed to obtain the
dentin root specimens/slices.
Failure Analysis
The failure mode was verified by using a stereomicroscope at 40
magnification. Failures were classified into 1 of 5 possible categories:
(1) adhesive between post and resin cement (no resin cement visible
around the post); (2) mixed, with resin cement covering 0%–50% of
the post surface; (3) mixed, with resin cement covering between
50% and 100% of the post surface; (4) adhesive between resin cement
and root dentin (post enveloped by resin cement); and (5) cohesive
within the resin cement (26).
Statistical Analysis
Push-out bond strength data were analyzed with the statistical pro-
gram SigmaStat version 3.5 (Systat Software Inc, Chicago, IL) by using
two-way analysis of variance considering 2 factors (surface pretreatment
and root region) and their interaction. Multiple comparisons were made
by the Student-Newman-Keuls test. The significance level was set at 5%.
Results
Data analysis revealed that there was a statistically significant inter-
action between the surface pretreatments and the root regions evaluated
(P = .002). According to Figure 2A, silanization alone (group S) did not
improve post retention when compared with the non-silanized groups
(A and C) (P $ .153). In contrast, group S/A showed a higher post
retention value than the other groups in the middle and coronal root
regions (P # .033), except for group A in the middle region, which
demonstrated a similar bond strength to that of group S/A
(P = .126). Post retention values were similar in the apical root region
for all surface pretreatments (P $ .210). These results demonstrated
that the effect of different levels of post surface pretreatment depended
on which region of root dentin was present.
Figure 2B graphically demonstrates the push-out bond strength re-
sults in the different root regions. Figure 2C shows the failure modes of
the tested groups. The most frequent pattern obtained was adhesive be-
tween the post and resin cement.
Discussion
The first hypothesis of the present study was that the application of
silane without an additional resin adhesive layer would not improve the
108 Machado et al.
retention of a GFR post to root dentin. According to results displayed in
Figure 2A, this hypothesis could be fully accepted, because the applica-
tion of silane promoted similar bond strength when compared with the
values obtained for non-silanized posts, irrespective of the root region
investigated.
Silane is commonly applied as surface pretreatment of GFR posts
in an attempt to enhance their bond to root dentin. The working mech-
anism of silane is based on increasing the post surface wettability and
consequent chemical bridge formation with the monomers of resin ce-
ments/composites (4). Nonetheless, in several studies, silanization has
not resulted in improved post retention outcomes (4, 8, 11, 18),
corroborating the present findings (Fig. 2A). Two possible explanations
can be offered with regard to this outcome. First, silane is known to have
a low level of ability to expose the reactive glass fibers of GFR posts
because they are superficially protected by epoxy resin (4); in fact,
the GFR post used in this study (Exacto) is constituted of 80 and 20
wt% of glass fibers and epoxy resin, respectively (manufacturer’s infor-
mation). Second, the interface produced between resin cements and
silanized posts was probably affected by the phenomenon of hydrolytic
weakening (27), hampering the proper interaction between the mate-
rials. However, the application of a hydrophobic resin adhesive on a
silanized post would probably reduce the possibility of hydrolysis and
consequently improve post retention, which was the second hypothesis
of this study.
According to the push-out bond strength results presented in
Figure 2A, the application of silane followed by the unfilled adhesive
significantly improved post retention, although only in the middle
and coronal root dentin regions. This result differs from the findings
of a previous study (12), in which there were no differences in push-
out bond strength between groups that used only silane or silane
plus adhesive as post surface pretreatments. The authors stated that
the application of an additional adhesive layer created an additional ad-
hesive interface in the root-cement-post system, leading to negative out-
comes such as increased adhesive failures. Nevertheless, our results
demonstrated that the application of both silane and adhesive improved
post retention by approximately 53% and 97% in the coronal and mid-
dle root regions, respectively, when compared with the application of
silane only (Fig. 2A). The unfilled resin adhesive is believed to have
enabled the formation of a more compatible and stronger interaction
between the silanized post and the heterogeneous composition of the
luting resin cement (27). Whereas silanization makes the post hydro-
phobic (23), resin cements are hydrophilic in their composition
(28), which may lead to decreased intermolecular interaction between
them. Resin adhesives are usually made up of hydrophobic dimethacry-
lates, which may covalently bond to both silane and cement materials by
means of ester bonds (28). Consequently, a strong intermolecular
chemical interaction between post and cement could be achieved, lead-
ing to the formation of a homogeneous tertiary monoblock (2). More-
over, it is also believed that when the solvent present in silane coupling
agents is incompletely volatilized from the post surface, bond strength
may be negatively affected; however, the active application of the adhe-
sive layer on the silanized post may have improved the volatilization of
residual solvent (29), acting as a protective resin barrier against hydro-
lysis (24).
Despite the better post retention of the proposed technique
(group S/A) when compared with the other treatments evaluated,
this surface treatment was truly better only in the middle and coronal
root regions, whereas in the apical region, the group S/A generated
similar results to those of the other groups (Fig. 2A and B). Consid-
ering this, the second hypothesis of this study could be only partially
accepted. There are some inherent difficulties with adhesion to dentin
in the apical root region, such as the restricted access of light to
JOE — Volume 41, Number 1, January 2015

Figure 2. (A) Table showing means (standard deviation) and pooled averages for the push-out bond strength (MPa) results obtained in the study. (B) Graph
showing the mean push-out bond strength values of each group in different dentin root regions (S/A, silane + adhesive; S, silane; A, adhesive; C, control). (C)
Failure analysis (%) of each group in dentin of different root regions.
initiate polymerization of adhesives and resin cements (12, 30), the
dentin morphology that offers conditions less favorable to bonding
processes (24), and the presence of a thicker and more compact
smear layer because of the restricted action of phosphoric acid
etching (31). Nevertheless, all surface treatments performed in this
study resulted in similar bond strength values in the apical root region
(Fig. 2A), which in part may be due to the adhesive approach and the
type of resin cement selected (ie, 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive and
dual-cure regular cement, respectively), which usually result in suc-
cessful post retention to the root canal (32).
With regard to the failure mode analysis found in this study,
Figure 2C shows that the adhesive type between post and resin cement
was the most frequent pattern obtained for groups S, A, and control,
which is in agreement with previous studies (19, 33). Surprisingly, in
group S/A the protocol resulted in low percentage of this type of
adhesive failure, suggesting that the application of the resin adhesive
on the silanized post improved its chemical interaction with the cement.
In conclusion, the present in vitro study demonstrated improve-
ment in post retention when silane and resin adhesive were combined as
chemical surface pretreatment of GFR posts. Although this outcome was
positive, our study presented some limitations such as the absence of
scanning electron microscopy to characterize the failure patterns of
the bonding surface and the lack of specimen aging. In addition, mal-
adjustment of the post in the root canal may occur if a thick adhesive
layer is applied on the post surface; however, no maladjustments
JOE — Volume 41, Number 1, January 2015
Basic Research—Technology
were observed in the present study, because the intention was to use
only a thin layer of adhesive.
Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References
1. Balbosh A, Kern M. Effect of surface treatment on retention of glass-fiber endodontic
posts. J Prosthet Dent 2006;95:218–23.
2. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal.
J Endod 2007;33:391–8.
3. Sarkis-Onofre R, Skupien J, Cenci M, et al. The role of resin cement on bond
strength of glass-fiber posts luted into root canals: a systematic review and meta-
analysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent 2014;39:E31–44.
4. Zicari F, De Munck J, Scotti R, et al. Factors affecting the cement-post interface. Dent
Mater 2012;28:287–97.
5. Bitter K, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Effects of pretreatment and thermocycling on
bond strength of resin core materials to various fiber-reinforced composite posts.
J Adhes Dent 2008;10:481–9.
6. Bitter K, Meyer-Luckel H, Priehn K, et al. Bond strengths of resin cements to fiber-
reinforced composite posts. Am J Dent 2006;19:138–42.
7. Choi Y, Pae A, Park EJ, et al. The effect of surface treatment of fiber-reinforced posts
on adhesion of a resin-based luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:362–8.
8. Kim YK, Son JS, Kim KH, et al. A simple 2-step silane treatment for improved bonding
durability of resin cement to quartz fiber post. J Endod 2013;39:1287–90.
9. Liu C, Liu H, Qian YT, et al. The influence of four dual-cure resin cements and sur-
face treatment selection to bond strength of fiber post. Int J Oral Sci 2014;6:56–60.
Silane and Adhesive as Post Surface Treatment 109
Basic Research—Technology
10. Perdigao J, Gomes G, Lee IK. The effect of silane on the bond strengths of fiber posts.
Dent Mater 2006;22:752–8.
11. Tian Y, Mu Y, Setzer FC, et al. Failure of fiber posts after cementation with different
adhesives with or without silanization investigated by pullout tests and scanning elec-
tron microscopy. J Endod 2012;38:1279–82.
12. Leme AA, Pinho AL, de Goncalves L, et al. Effects of silane application on luting fiber
posts using self-adhesive resin cement. J Adhes Dent 2013;15:269–74.
13. Mohsen CA. Evaluation of push-out bond strength of surface treatments of two
esthetic posts. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:596–602.
14. Sipahi C, Piskin B, Akin GE, et al. Adhesion between glass fiber posts and resin
cement: evaluation of bond strength after various pre-treatments. Acta Odontol
Scand 2014;72:509–15.
15. Samimi P, Mortazavi V, Salamat F. Effects of heat treating silane and different etching
techniques on glass fiber post push-out bond strength. Oper Dent 2014;39:
E217–24.
16. Braga NM, Souza-Gabriel AE, Messias DC, et al. Flexural properties, morphology and
bond strength of fiber-reinforced posts: influence of post pretreatment. Braz Dent J
2012;23:679–85.
17. de Sousa Menezes M, Queiroz EC, Soares PV, et al. Fiber post etching with
hydrogen peroxide: effect of concentration and application time. J Endod 2011;
37:398–402.
18. Elsaka SE. Influence of chemical surface treatments on adhesion of fiber posts to
composite resin core materials. Dent Mater 2013;29:550–8.
19. Bitter K, Perdigao J, Exner M, et al. Reliability of fiber post bonding to root ca-
nal dentin after simulated clinical function in vitro. Oper Dent 2012;37:
397–405.
20. Jongsma LA, Kleverlaan CJ, Pallav P, et al. Influence of polymerization mode and C-
factor on cohesive strength of dual-cured resin cements. Dent Mater 2012;28:
722–8.
21. Tay FR, Loushine RJ, Lambrechts P, et al. Geometric factors affecting dentin bonding
in root canals: a theoretical modeling approach. J Endod 2005;31:584–9.
110 Machado et al.
22. Iglesias JG, Gonzalez-Benito J, Aznar AJ, et al. Effect of glass fiber surface treatments
on mechanical strength of epoxy based composite materials. J Colloid Interface Sci
2002;250:251–60.
23. Seed B. Silanizing glassware. Curr Protoc Protein Sci 2001 (Appendix 3:Appendix
3E). Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/0471140864.psa03es13. Accessed
November 14, 2014.
24. Ferrari M, Monticelli F, Cury AH, et al. Efficacy of a combined silica/methacrylate
coupling on the fiber post bonding to composite cores. Int Dent SA 2007;8:58–65.
25. Giachetti L, Grandini S, Calamai P, et al. Translucent fiber post cementation using
light- and dual-curing adhesive techniques and a self-adhesive material: push-out
test. J Dent 2009;37:638–42.
26. Albashaireh ZS, Ghazal M, Kern M. Effects of endodontic post surface treatment,
dentin conditioning, and artificial aging on the retention of glass fiber-reinforced
composite resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103:31–9.
27. Hooshmand T, van Noort R, Keshvad A. Bond durability of the resin-bonded and
silane treated ceramic surface. Dent Mater 2002;18:179–88.
28. Ferracane JL. Resin composite: state of the art. Dent Mater 2011;27:29–38.
29. Loguercio AD, Loeblein F, Cherobin T, et al. Effect of solvent removal on adhesive
properties of simplified etch-and-rinse systems and on bond strengths to dry and
wet dentin. J Adhes Dent 2009;11:213–9.
30. Kim YK, Kim SK, Kim KH, et al. Degree of conversion of dual-cured resin cement
light-cured through three fibre posts within human root canals: an ex vivo study.
Int Endod J 2009;42:667–74.
31. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, et al. Surface debris of canal walls after post space
preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;97:381–7.
32. Radovic I, Mazzitelli C, Chieffi N, et al. Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts ce-
mented using different adhesive approaches. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;116:557–63.
33. Manicardi CA, Versiani MA, Saquy PC, et al. Influence of filling materials on the
bonding interface of thin-walled roots reinforced with resin and quartz fiber posts.
J Endod 2011;37:531–7.
JOE — Volume 41, Number 1, January 2015