Clinical Relevance

When luting relined fiber posts with self-adhesive cement, the surface treatment of the posts influences the adhesion of the fiber posts to root dentin.

SUMMARY

This study evaluated the effect of surface treatment and silanization of resin composite on the bond strength of relined fiber posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cement. Push-out and microtensile bond strength (MTBS) tests were performed in this study. The endodontic treatment of 80 single-rooted bovine teeth was first performed in the push- out test segment, followed by weakening the intracanal walls by diamond bur. Then, the glass fiber posts were adapted with resin composite to fill the root canals, followed by photoactivation and resin surface conditioning according to four different experimental conditions: no conditioning as control, 10% hydrofluoric acid, 35% hydrogen peroxide, or air abrasion with alumina particle (all groups were subdivided into “with silanization” or “without silanization,” thus totaling eight experimental groups). Self-adhesive resin cement was used for the post cementation. Four slices per tooth were obtained for the push-out tests. Next, 160 blocks of resin composite were first produced for the MTBS tests; their bonding surfaces were conditioned (as mentioned, ie, eight treatments), and they were cemented to each other. The 80 sets (n=10/treatment) were then cut into microbars (16/set): eight were immediately tested, while the other eight were thermocycled (12,000×) and stored (120 days) before MTBS. Failure modes and topographic analyses were performed after treatments. There was no statistically significant difference for the push-out results. In MTBS, surface treatment and silanization had a significant effect (p<0.001). Aging decreased bond strength for all groups. Considering the aged groups, air abrasion promoted the highest values and silanization improved bond strength for all treatments except air abrasion. The alumina particle air abrasion of the relining resin composite promoted the highest bond strengths when luting with self-adhesive resin cement.

Teeth with extensive coronary destruction usually require the use of retainers, which provide core retention and, consequently support for prosthesis or coronary restoration.1,2  Although cast post-and-cores and fiber posts present equally favorable clinical results regarding longevity in teeth with regular root canals,3  the high modulus of elasticity of the cast post-and-cores contraindicates their use in teeth with an excessively wide root canal.4  Meanwhile, fiber posts seem more indicated because they have similar modulus of elasticity to that of the dentin, promoting better distribution of the stresses in the root and less probability of catastrophic root fractures.5,6 

The problem intensifies when the root canal presents oval anatomy or is greatly enlarged by endodontic treatments, internal resorption, and caries, thus leading to critical situations such as displacement of the posts resulting from poor adaptation to the root canal, problems caused by excessive cement thickness (voids and irregular contraction of polymerization), and risk of catastrophic fractures due to thin root walls.79  Thus, relined posts (fiberglass posts relined in the root canal with resin composite) have been proposed to enable better adaptation of prefabricated fiber posts in nonuniform anatomy or flared or oval-shaped canals.10  This technique considerably reduces the resin cement thickness required to fill the space between the post and the root canal walls and reduces the occurrence of voids and failure by polymerization contraction of the resin cement, consequently improving the adhesive bond strength of the post to the root canal.8,1113 

Self-adhesive resin cements present a less sensitive technique because they eliminate the pre-cementation steps of the resin cement inside the root canal.14  Moreover, these cements promote better bond strength results than conventional resin cements when tested with the relined posts.15,16  However, until now no study has evaluated surface conditioning of resin composite specifically applied for relining fiber posts to improve the bond strength of resin cements to the root canals.

Some techniques for surface treatment of resin composite blocks, such as aluminum oxide particle air abrasion and hydrofluoric acid etching have been previously tested to cement these blocks with self-adhesive resin cement for bond strength improvements.17  These treatments increased the surface roughness (adhesive area), increased the surface free energy, and exposed resin composite filler components.5,1821  Similarly, hydrogen peroxide was found to increase the roughness of resin composite restoration when it was clinically applied for bleaching.22  Therefore, bond strength improvements might also be expected when resin relined fiber posts are subjected to this kind of surface treatment before cementation.

Also, 3-(methacryloxy)propyl-trimethoxysilane-based primers are also indicated as coupling agents (chemical treatment) as part of a surface treatment, with or without topographic changes via physical treatments in order to promote bonding between organic and inorganic compounds from ceramic/resin composite and resin cements.23  Its application is recommended in repairing resin composite restorations, especially after surface treatments such as air abrasion with aluminum oxide, as it interacts with the filler particles, as well as in conditioning of glass-ceramic and silica-coated zirconia polycrystal.4,2426  However, its application in resin composite is still questioned.21 

Therefore, the aim of this present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and silane application on the bond strength durability of relined posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cement to the root canals. This question deserves to be evaluated, taking into account that adhesive failures of the relined post occur and have been investigated.15,16  Therefore, in view of the previous considerations, the null hypothesis of our study was that there is no difference in bond strength between resin composite and resin cement after the different surface conditioning protocols or silane application. In addition, aging does not reduce the microtensile bond strength values.

Study Design

Two mechanical tests were applied in this study: push-out and microtensile tests.

Push-out Test

The sample size was calculated using the OpenEpi 3.01 program implementing parameters that were based on a previous pilot study considering a power of 80% and a significance level of 0.05, requiring eight bovine teeth per group. However, 10 teeth per group were used in this study because of the variability of the root anatomy of bovine teeth (n=10). The specimens were randomly allocated into eight groups considering the surface treatment with or without silane application (Table 1).

Table 1

Experimental Groups Regarding the Surface Treatment Used, Application or Not of the Silane Agent and Thermocycling Plus Storage (Only for Microtensile Bond Strength Test)

Experimental Groups Regarding the Surface Treatment Used, Application or Not of the Silane Agent and Thermocycling Plus Storage (Only for Microtensile Bond Strength Test)
Experimental Groups Regarding the Surface Treatment Used, Application or Not of the Silane Agent and Thermocycling Plus Storage (Only for Microtensile Bond Strength Test)

Tooth Selection and Preparation—

Bovine incisors were obtained and sectioned to get roots with standard lengths of 16 mm. The roots were then selected according to the diameter of a size 80 K-file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) to reduce the size variation between root canals. Apical root portions were included in a chemically cured acrylic resin (VIPI, Pirassununga, Brazil) block. The specimens were attached on a dental surveyor with the long axes of the teeth and the resin block parallel to each other and perpendicular to the ground. All tooth preparation protocols were performed by one operator (RVM).

Endodontic Procedures—

Canal patency was established with a size 15 K-file (Dentsply Maillefer). The working length was set at 1 mm from the apex. Root canals were prepared by using endodontic files (Dentsply Maillefer). The coronal portion of the roots was initially prepared by using Gates-Glidden drills (Dentsply Maillefer). The step-back technique was subsequently applied. Each canal was irrigated with 2 mL of a 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (Novaderme, Santa Maria, Brazil) between each instrument change. Specimens were irrigated with 5 mL of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA, Novaderme) for 3 minutes and subsequently rinsed with 2 mL of distilled water. Next, they were dried using size 80 paper points (Dentsply Maillefer).

AH Plus (Dentsply Maillefer) was mixed according to the manufacturer's instructions and placed to working length using a lentulo spiral (Dentsply Maillefer). Gutta-percha cones (Dentsply Maillefer) compatible with the diameter of the last instrument used for the apical third of the root canal were used. The compression technique was cold lateral condensation with R8 accessory cones (Tanari, Manacapuru, Brazil). Excess gutta-percha in the coronal portion was removed with a hot instrument. Roots were stored for 72 hours at 37°C and 100% humidity to allow the sealers to set.

Post Space Preparation—

Root canal filling was partially removed using a hot instrument and a Whitepost DC N2 (FGM, Joinville, Brazil) bur at 12 mm. Then, the root canals were enlarged by one operator (RVM) who ground the intracanal walls with No. 4137 diamond burs (KG Sorensen, Cotia, Brazil) in high rotation (Extra Torque 605C; Kavo, Joinville, Brazil) under distilled refrigerated water (Figure 1). This enlarging was performed in the most coronal portion of the root up to 10 mm deep, standardizing the canal diameter opening through the total diameter of the bur (2.5 mm).

Figure 1

Representative image of tooth enlarging preparation for push-out test.

Figure 1

Representative image of tooth enlarging preparation for push-out test.

Close modal

Luting Procedures—

To obtain relined fiberglass posts, Whitepost DC N2 (FGM) posts were cleaned with 70% alcohol, and a silane (RelyX Ceramic Primer; 3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions. The resin composite (Filtek Z250; 3M ESPE) was inserted inside the previously lubricated root canal (K-Y gel; Johnson & Johnson, São José dos Campos, Brazil), the post was positioned, and the resin was light cured for 5 seconds using a 1200 mW/cm2 light-emitting diode light-curing unit (Radii Cal; SDI, Melbourne, Australia) from the occlusal surface. The relined posts were removed from the canal, light-cured for 40 seconds, and reinserted to verify the adaptation.9  The 80 relined posts were divided into surface treatment and silane application groups (Table 1). All specimens were subjected to the same washing and drying process (washing with distilled water for 10 seconds using a dental syringe and air-jet drying for 30 seconds) after each treatment procedure.

The self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200; 3M ESPE) was handled properly and inserted into the canal, followed by insertion of the relined fiber post. The cement was light-cured inside the root for 40 seconds (Radii Cal; SDI), 10 seconds on each face. The specimens were stored for 24 hours at 37°C.

Push-out Test—

The teeth were fixed on a metal base in the cutting machine (Isomet 1000 Precision Saw; Buehler, Warwick, UK) and then sectioned perpendicular to the long axis of the root. The first coronal slice (approximately 1 mm thick) was discarded, and four other slices per specimen (thickness: 1.5±0.3 mm) were obtained (40 per group). Each slice was positioned on a metallic device with a central opening (Ø=3 mm) larger than the canal diameter. The most coronal portion of the specimen was placed downward.

The push-out test was performed in a universal testing machine (Emic DL-2000; Emic, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil) at a speed of 1 mm/min. A metallic cylinder (Ø extremity= 0.8 mm) induced a load on the post in an apical to coronal direction without applying any pressure on the resin composite, cement, or dentin.16 

Push-out bond strength values (α) in MPa were obtained with the formula α = F/A, where F = load for specimen rupture (N) and A = bonded area (mm2). The formula to calculate the lateral area of a circular straight cone with parallel bases was used to determine the area. The formula used was A = πg(R1 + R2), where π = 3.14, g = slant height, R1 = smaller base radius, and R2 = larger base radius. The following formula was used to determine the slant height: g = (h2 + [R2 – R1]2)1/2, where h = section height; R1 and R2 were obtained by measuring the internal diameters of the smaller and larger base, respectively, which corresponded to the internal diameter between the root canal walls. The diameters and section height were measured using a digital caliper (Starret 727, Starrett, Itu, São Paulo, Brazil).16,2729 

Failure Analysis—

Specimens were analyzed at 10× magnification with a stereomicroscope (Zeiss Stemi SV6; Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany) after the push-out test. Failure modes were categorized as follows: Ac/d = mainly adhesive at cement/dentin interface, Ac/cr = mainly adhesive at resin composite/cement interface, Cr/p = mainly adhesive at resin composite/fiber post interface, COE = mainly cohesive in some material or dentin (Figure 2). The color of the composites was carefully selected in order to clarify the evaluated interfaces. Only the Ac/cr failures were considered for statistical analysis for the push-out test because this was the interface of interest.

Figure 2

Representative failure images of push-out test at 10x magnification. (A) adhesive at cement/dentin interface, (B) adhesive at resin composite/cement interface, (C) adhesive at resin composite/fiber post interface, (D) cohesive in some material or dentin.

Figure 2

Representative failure images of push-out test at 10x magnification. (A) adhesive at cement/dentin interface, (B) adhesive at resin composite/cement interface, (C) adhesive at resin composite/fiber post interface, (D) cohesive in some material or dentin.

Close modal

Microtensile Test

One hundred and sixty (160) microbars for each surface treatment (as designed for push-out tests) were obtained. For this, microhybrid resin composite blocks were cemented together both to the same experimental group according to the surface treatment with or without silane application.

In addition, the 160 specimens from each group were divided equally (n=80) according to the aging condition. Aging and storage for MTBS were evaluated to test the bond strength durability (immediate test or aging condition) (Figure 3).

Figure 3

Representative image diagram of the MTBS experimental groups.

Figure 3

Representative image diagram of the MTBS experimental groups.

Close modal

Specimen Production for MTBS—

One hundred and sixty (160) resin composite blocks (Filtek Z250; 3M ESPE, eighty shade A1 and eighty shade D3) were prepared using a silicon template (4 mm high and 8 mm sides) placed on a glass plate covered by a polyester strip. Each increment (±2 mm) was inserted using a No. 1 spatula (Golgran, São Caetano do Sul, Brazil) and photoactivated for 40 seconds (Radii Cal; SDI, 1200 mW/cm2). The last layer was covered with a polyester strip and compressed using a glass slide to obtain a flat surface. The sample was photoactivated through the glass plate with the polyester strip in contact with the resin composite surface. The obtained blocks were divided by shade into surface treatment and silane application groups (Table 1). One operator (RVM) performed all specimen production procedures.

Cementation Procedures—

The blocks were washed for 10 seconds with distilled water spray and dried with water and oil free spray before surface treatment and cementation. The bonding surface of each block received the surface treatment, as described in Table 1. The surfaces of those included in the silanization groups were cleaned with 70% alcohol and then the silane agent was applied with a disposable microbrush (Cavibrush; FGM) and rubbed for 5 seconds with evaporation of solvent for 5 minutes.

The self-adhesive resin cement (RelyX U200; 3M ESPE) was mixed properly and applied on the conditioned surface of one of the blocks and another block from the same group was positioned/cemented, followed by static load application of 2.5 N onto the assembly and then cement excess was removed with a microbrush, waiting for 3 minutes before proceeding with photoactivation for 25 seconds on the interface on one side of the blocks. The assembly then received additional photoactivation (80 seconds, ie, 20 seconds each side) after load removal.

Microtensile Bond Strength Test—

Each block was stored in 37°C distilled water for 24 hours and then sectioned into microbars with an interface area of about 1 mm × 1 mm, using a diamond disk at low speed under water cooling (Isomet, Buehler), producing a total of approximately 16 microbars 8 mm long. Half of the samples (8 microbars) were immediately subjected to the microtensile test (baseline), and the other half were aged for 12,000 cycles between 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds and a transfer time of 2 seconds (Nova Etica, São Paulo, Brazil), then stored in 37°C distilled water for 120 days.20,30 

Each sample was measured using a digital caliper (Starrett 727; Starrett, Itu, Brazil) and positioned in Geraldeli devices with cyanoacrylate glue (Three Bond Gel; Three Bond, Diadema, Brazil). The MTBS was determined in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL-2000, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil) with a load cell of 50 kN (force limit = 500 N) at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The bond strength (α) in MPa was calculated by α = f/a, where f = the force required to induce failure (in newtons) and a = the area of the bonded interface (mm2; thickness 1 × thickness 2, measured at the adhesive zone).20,31 

Failure Analysis—

All specimens submitted to the microtensile test were analyzed under a stereomicroscope (Zeiss Stemi SV6; Carl Zeiss, Jena, Germany). The failure modes were categorized as mainly adhesive (at resin composite/cement interface failure) or cohesive (predominant in the resin composite or cement).

Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM)

One sample of relined fiber post from each group was prepared for surface analysis by scanning electron microscopy (VEGA3; TESCAN, Brno, Kohoutovice, Czech Republic) at 2000× magnification to assess changes in surface topography.

Data Analysis

Normality and homogeneity analyses were performed, confirming normal distribution of the data from the two tests.

Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (IBM SPSS Software; IBM, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis in the push-out test, considering the surface treatment in the same silane application condition. The silane application was analyzed with the Student t-test in the same surface treatment. The significance level was set at 5%.

One-way ANOVA was used for statistical analysis for MTBS to investigate the difference between the groups regarding the surface treatment within the same condition of silanization and/or aging. A Tukey test was applied to compare the same surface treatment, varying the silanization and aging.

Push-out Test

Two-way ANOVA showed that the surface treatment and silanization had no significant effect on push-out bond strength; thus, the groups had similar statistical results (Table 2). The main failure type was between cement and root dentin, while posts treated with hydrogen peroxide without silane application presented 37.5% of failures between cement and resin composite (Table 2).

Table 2

Results of Push-out Bond Strength Tests and Failure Modes Distribution

Results of Push-out Bond Strength Tests and Failure Modes Distribution
Results of Push-out Bond Strength Tests and Failure Modes Distribution

Microtensile Bond Strength Test

At baseline condition, the following was observed (Table 3): 1) hydrofluoric acid etching had the lowest bond strength when the silane was not applied, and the other groups had higher and similar bond strength; 2) air abrasion had the highest values with silanization; and 3) the silane application improved the bond strength of the hydrofluoric acid group, reduced the bond strength of the hydrogen peroxide group, and had no effect for control and air-abrasion groups.

Table 3

Results of the Microtensile Bond Strength Test in MPa a

Results of the Microtensile Bond Strength Test in MPa a
Results of the Microtensile Bond Strength Test in MPa a

In the aging condition, the following was noted (Table 3): 1) air abrasion promoted the highest bond strength results for silane application and no silane application; and 2) silanization had no effect on the bond strength results of the air abrasion groups.

It was noted that the bond strength of all of the groups was lower after aging when comparing baseline vs aging and keeping the same surface treatment and silane condition (evaluation of the bond strength durability) (Table 3).

Regarding the failure mode, there were more adhesive failures after aging compared with the immediately tested specimens (Table 4); the exception was the hydrofluoric acid group without silane, which had less adhesive failure after thermal aging. The air-abrasion and untreated groups generally had fewer adhesive failures than the other two. Pretest failures (breaking the specimen during cutting or during the aging process) were not included; therefore, not all groups had a total of 80 specimens. The groups that had pretest failure were control with silane (2 losses), hydrofluoric acid 10% (6 losses, in which 4 were in aging specimens), and air abrasion with silane at the baseline (1 loss).

Table 4

Failure Modes in Each Group for Microtensile Bond Strengtha

Failure Modes in Each Group for Microtensile Bond Strengtha
Failure Modes in Each Group for Microtensile Bond Strengtha

Topographic Analysis

Hydrofluoric acid etching and air abrasion changed the surface topography of the resin composite, removing its matrix with exposure of fillers, opening the spaces in nanoscale, resulting in a somewhat rougher surface (Figure 4). Voids and possible undercuts appeared in the surface etched by hydrofluoric acid owing to selective corrosion process, while air abrasion blasted and scratched the surface by partial material removal and alumina particle deposition (particle incrustation via kinetic energy from the particles air-induction).

Figure 4

Representative SEM images at 2000x magnification of relined fiber post surface non-silanized and silanized: (A) non-surface treatment; (B) 10% Hydrofluoric Acid treatment; (C) 35% Hydrogen Peroxide treatment; (D) air-abrasion treatment.

Figure 4

Representative SEM images at 2000x magnification of relined fiber post surface non-silanized and silanized: (A) non-surface treatment; (B) 10% Hydrofluoric Acid treatment; (C) 35% Hydrogen Peroxide treatment; (D) air-abrasion treatment.

Close modal

This study showed significant differences in bond strength for the microtensile test (MTBS) between self-adhesive resin cement and resin composite when different surface treatments were applied, despite the push-out test not presenting any difference between surface treatments. Therefore, the null hypothesis was partially accepted.

The push-out test presents somewhat similar characteristics in terms of effect from forces when under clinical service on the fiber post, interfaces, and root dentin, that is, vectors of shear stress inducing pull-out of fiber post. Clinically, mainly adhesive failures at the interface have been observed between resin cement and dentin making this the most critical area.12,13  These failures were identified as predominant in the push-out tests we performed. Thus, we suggest that it has been the reason for insignificant statistical differences in terms of the adhesion of the fiber posts treated with the surface treatments tested in the push-out test. These findings suggest that the priority is to improve adhesion of resin cement to dentin considering the context evaluated in our study.

In contrast, our findings show statistical differences in adhesion for distinct treatments when evaluated under the MTBS test, indicating that treatments influence adhesion between the resin composite and the resin cement, especially after treatments that generate greater surface roughness. This methodologic approach isolates the interface of interest for this study, thereby generating a more homogeneous stress distribution at the interface than other mechanical tests.32,33  Therefore, these outcomes present more specific interpretations of the adhesive resistance between resin cement and resin composite. In addition, the obtained results may even be considered for other interpretations and other applications of resin cements on resin composite restorations.

The cohesive failures of MTBS occur because the resin composite has a tensile strength around 66 MPa (28.1 - 102.1 MPa).31  The adhesive failure rates obtained in the present study are within this range; therefore, the groups that presented the most cohesive failure had this outcome due to the high adhesive resistance between the self-adhesive resin cement and the resin composite, which was similar to the fracture strength of the resin composite. Thus, Palasuk and others34  reported that the MTBS produced after air abrasion with aluminum oxide on resin composites was not different from the cohesive strength of this material. The same can be seen in our findings, since similar bond strength values between resin composite and resin cement for the cohesive strength of the resin composite occurred.31 

The air-abrasion group in this study generally had the highest bond strength values compared with the other treatments; this is in accordance with previous studies that suggest that the bond strength of a composite improves with a new resinous material due to the increased roughness of the treated surface.19,3537  SEM evidenced the significant increase of surface roughness in specimens sandblasted with 45-μm aluminum oxide particles in the same way as previous studies.36,38 

This increase in roughness seemed to be the most important reason for the bond strength improvement between the two composites among the factors that influenced adhesion of the self-adhesive resin cement to the prepared substrate. This may have been caused by increased mechanical interlocking and exposure of the silica particles, as well as the similar chemical nature between the old and new resins, inherently potentiating the chemical bonds.38 

In the same way as air abrasion, hydrofluoric acid promotes changes in the topography of the composite when applied on a resin composite surface. However, there is water penetration and hydrolytic degradation during the conditioning process, which means breaking the silane bond between the matrix and filler and a consequent weakening of the composite.39,40  Thus, the resin composite surface becomes rough, but the structure becomes very weak and prone to microcracks. The SEM image evidences areas of structure loss, which corroborate this behavior. The use of silane on resin composite under this treatment improved the bond strength results. However, it is possible to deduce that the reapplication of this element prevents this weakening since hydrofluoric acid acts by breaking the silane bonds present in the composites.

The union between silane and resin composite deteriorates over time due to hydrolysis since the resins are permeable.41  It is believed this deterioration will be lower if the surface preparation is adequate, providing micromechanical retention performed before silane treatment.41  However, contrary to what can be observed for dental ceramics,25  our study demonstrated that this effect did not occur on the resin composite surfaces. When considering the no-treatment group, silane application after aging promoted higher bond strength than the no-silanization condition, meaning it appears to produce a relevant effect when no surface topographic changes occur; on the other hand, silanization had no effect for the air-abrasion group, thereby corroborating a study that showed no gain when associating alumina particle air abrasion with silane application.42 

The thermal cycle aging process might lead to hydrolytic degradation in the resin matrix owing to the effect of contraction and expansion of the composite and distinct substrates.20,30  Our findings show a significant reduction of MTBS after aging; all the treatments and their combinations had lower adhesion after aging compared with their counterpart at baseline, meaning distinct outcomes might be obtained before or after aging. This demonstrates that bond strength durability evaluation by means of aging procedure (long-term storage, thermal cycling) is crucial to better interpret and understand the adhesion promotion potential of surface conditionings.

Regarding study limitations, the cohesive failures in the microtensile test could be mentioned, even though only data from samples with adhesive failure were considered for statistical analysis. Also, no aging condition (thermal or mechanical cycling) were performed on the push-out specimens. Another aspect is that bovine teeth were used as substitutes for human teeth for the push-out evaluation; however, the use of bovine teeth in adhesion tests has been well accepted due to the similarities to human teeth.43 

  • The surface treatments had no effect on the push-out bond strength results.

  • The alumina particle air abrasion promoted the highest MTBS.

  • In MTBS, aging reduced bond strength for all surface treatments.

  • Silanization promoted better bond strength results for the MTBS specimens etched by 10% hydrofluoric acid and air abrasion when immediately tested.

  • For the aging MTBS specimens, silanization improved bond strength for the control and 10% hydrofluoric acid groups.

This study was financed in part by the Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior - Brasil (CAPES) - Finance Code 001.

The authors state that they do not present any conflicts of interest.

1. 
Trabert
KC
&
Coony
JF
(1984)
The endodontically treated tooth. Restorative concepts and techniques
Dental Clinics of North America
28
(4)
923
-
951
.
2. 
Baraban
DJ
(1988)
The restoration of endodontically treated teeth: An update
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
59
(5)
553
-
558
.
3. 
Marchionatti
AME,
Wandscher
VF,
Ripe
MP,
Kaizer
OB,
&
Valandro
LF
(2017)
Clinical performance and failure modes of pulpless teeth restored with posts: A systematic review
Brazilian Oral Research
31
e64
.
4. 
Tezvergil
A,
Lassila
LVJ,
&
Vallitu
PK
(2003)
Composite-composite repair bond strength: Effect of different adhesion primers
Journal of Dentistry
31
(8)
521
-
525
.
5. 
Coelho
CS,
Biffi
JC,
Silva
GR,
Abrahão
A,
Campos
RE,
&
Soares
CJ
(2009)
Finite element analysis of weakened roots restored with composite resin and posts
Dental Materials Journal
28
(6)
671
-
678
.
6. 
Santos
AF,
Meira
JB,
Tanaka
CB,
Xavier
TA,
Ballester
RY,
Lima
RG,
Pfeifer
CS,
&
Versluis
A
(2010)
Can fiber posts increase root stresses and reduce fracture?
Journal of Dental Research
89
(6)
587
-
591
.
7. 
D'Arcangelo
C,
Cinelli
M,
De Angelis
F,
&
D'Amario
M
(2007)
The effect of resin cement film thickness on the pullout strength of a fiber-reinforced post system
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
98
(3)
193
-
198
.
8. 
Zogheib
LV,
Pereira
JR,
do Valle
AL,
de Oliveira
JA,
&
Pegoraro
LF
(2008)
Fracture resistance of weakened roots restored with composite resin and glass fiber post
Brazilian Dental Journal
19
(4)
329
-
333
.
9. 
Wandscher
VF,
Bergoli
CD,
Limberger
IF,
Ardenghi
TM,
&
Valandro
LF
(2014)
Preliminary results of the survival and fracture load of roots restored with intracanal posts: Weakened vs nonweakened roots
Operative Dentistry
39
(5)
541
-
555
.
10. 
Grandini
S,
Sapio
S,
&
Simonetti
M
(2003)
Use of anatomic post and core for reconstructing an endodontically treated tooth: A case report
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
5
(3)
243
-
247
.
11. 
Macedo
VC,
Faria e Silva
AL,
&
Martins
LR
(2010)
Effect of cement type, relining procedure, and length of cementation on pull-out bond strength of fiber posts
Journal of Endodontics
36
(9)
1543
-
1546
.
12. 
Farina
AP,
Chiela
H,
Carlini-Junior
B,
Mesquita
MF,
Miyagaki
DC,
Randi Ferraz
CC,
Vidal
CM,
&
Cecchin
D
(2016)
Influence of cement type and relining procedure on push-Oout bond strength of fiber posts after cyclic loading
.
Journal of Prosthodontics
25
(1)
54
-
60
.
13. 
Rocha
AT,
Gonçalves
LM,
Vasconcelos
AJC,
Matos Maia Filho
E,
Nunes Carvalho
C,
&
de Jesus Tavarez
RR
(2017)
Effect of anatomical customization of the fiber post on the bond strength of a self-adhesive resin cement
International Journal of Dentistry
2017
e5010712
.
14. 
Skupien
JA,
Sarkis-Onofre
R,
Cenci
MS,
Moraes
RR,
&
Pereira-Cenci
T
(2015)
A systematic review of factors associated with the retention of glass fiber posts
.
Brazilian Oral Research
29
(1)
1
-
8
.
15. 
Da Silveira-Pedrosa
DM,
Martins
LR,
Sinhoreti
MA,
Correr-Sobrino
L,
Souza-Neto
MD,
Costa
ED
de F Pedrosa-Filho
C,
&
de Carvalgo
JR
(2016)
Push-out bond strength of glass fiber posts cemented in weakened roots with different luting agents
Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice
17
(2)
119
-
124
.
16. 
De Souza,
Marcondes
ML,
da Silva
D,
Borges
GA,
Júnior
LB,
&
Spohr
AM
(2016)
Relined fiberglass post: Effect of luting length, resin cement, and cyclic loading on the bond to weakened root dentin
Operative Dentistry
41
(6)
174
-
182
.
17. 
Harorli
OT,
Barutcugil
C,
Kirmali
O,
&
Kapdan
A
(2015)
Shear bond strength of a self-etched resin cement to an indirect composite: effect of different surface treatments
.
Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice
18
(3)
405
-
410
.
18. 
Gupta
S,
Parolia
A,
Jain
A,
Kundabala
M,
Mohan
M,
&
de Moraes Porto
IC
(2015)
A comparative effect of various surface chemical treatments on the resin composite-composite repair bond strength
Journal of the Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry
33
(3)
245
-
249
.
19. 
Loomans
BAC,
Mesko
ME,
Moraes
RR,
Ruben
J,
Bronkhorst
EM,
Pereira-Cenci
T,
&
Huysmans
MC
(2017)
Effect of different surface treatment techniques on the repair strength of indirect composites
Journal of Dentistry
59
18
-
25
.
20. 
Ozcan
M,
Barbosa
SH,
Melo
RM,
Galhano
GA,
&
Bottino
MA
(2007)
Effect of surface conditioning methods on the microtensile bond strength of resin composite to composite after aging conditions
Dental Materials
23
(10)
1276
-
1282
.
21. 
Rathke
A,
Tymina
Y,
&
Haller
B
(2009)
Effect of different surface treatments on the composite-composite repair bond strength
Clinical Oral Investigations
13
(3)
317
-
323
.
22. 
Attin
T,
Hanning
C,
Wiegand
A,
&
Attin
R
(2004)
Effect of bleaching on restorative materials and restorations—A systematic review
Dental Materials
20
(9)
852
-
861
.
23. 
Jung
CY
&
Matinlinna
JP
(2012)
Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface conditioning in dentistry: An overview
Dental Materials
28
(5)
467
-
772
.
24. 
Bouschlicher
MR,
Reinhardt
JW,
&
Vargas
MA
(1997)
Surface treatment techniques for resin composite repair
American Journal of Dentistry
10
(6)
279
-
283
.
25. 
Venturini
AD,
Prochnow
C,
Rambo
D,
Gundel
A,
&
Valandro
LF
(2015)
Effect of hydrofluoric acid concentration on resin adhesion to a feldspathic ceramic
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
17
(4)
313
-
320
.
26. 
Wille
S,
Lehmann
F,
&
Kern
M
(2017)
Durability of resin bonding to lithium disilicate and zirconia ceramic using a self-etching primer
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
19
(6)
491
-
496
.
27. 
Bottino
MA,
Baldissara
P,
Valandro
LF,
Galhano
GA,
&
Scotti
R
(2007)
Effects of mechanical cycling on the bonding of zirconia and fiber posts to human root dentin
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
9
(3)
327
-
331
.
28. 
Valandro
LF,
Baldissara
P,
Galhano
GA,
Melo
RM,
Mallmann
A,
Scotti
R,
&
Bottino
MA
(2007)
Effect of mechanical cycling on the push-out bond strength of fiber posts adhesively bonded to human root dentin
Operative Dentistry
32
(6)
579
-
588
.
29. 
Bergoli
CD,
Amaral
M,
&
Valandro
LF
(2012)
The disk-specimen thickness does not influence the push-out bond strength results between fiber post and root dentin
Journal of Adhesion
88
(3)
213
-
223
.
30. 
Ghavami-Lahiji
M,
Firouzmanesh
M,
Bagheri
H,
Jafarzadeh Kashi
TS,
Razazpour
F,
&
Behroozibakhsh
M
(2018)
The effect of thermocycling on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of a microhybrid dental resin composite
Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics
43
(2)
e26,
31. 
Celik
C,
Cehreli
BS,
Bagis
B,
&
Arhun
N
(2014)
Microtensile bond strength of composite-to-composite repair with different surface treatments and adhesive systems
Journal of Adhesion Science and Technology
28
(13)
1264
-
1276
.
32. 
Phrukkanon
S,
Burrow
MF,
&
Tyas
MJ
(1998)
The influence of cross-sectional shape and surface area on the microtensile bond test
Dental Materials
14
(3)
212
-
221
.
33. 
Armstrong
S,
Geraldeli
S,
Maia
R,
Raposo
LHA,
Soares
CJ,
&
Yamagawa
J
(2010)
Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods
Dental Materials
26
(2)
50
-
62
.
34. 
Palasuk
J,
Platt
JA,
Cho
SD,
Levon
JA,
Brown
DT,
&
Hovijitra
ST
(2012)
Effect of surface treatments on microtensile bond strength of repaired aged silorane resin composite
Operative Dentistry
38
(1)
91
-
99
,
35. 
Souza
EM,
Francischone
CE,
Powers
JM,
Rached
RN,
&
Vieira
S
(2008)
Effect of different surface treatments on the repair bond strength of indirect composites
American Journal of Dentistry
21
(2)
93
-
96
.
36. 
Costa
TRF,
Ferreira
SQ,
Klein-Júnior
CA,
Loguercio
AD,
&
Reis
A
(2010)
Durability of surface treatments and intermediate sgents used for repair of a polished composite
Operative Dentistry
35
(2)
231
-
237
.
37. 
Baena
E,
Vignolo
V,
Fuentes
MV,
&
Ceballos
L
(2015)
Influence of repair procedure on composite-to-composite microtensile bond strength
American Journal of Dentistry
28
(5)
255
-
260
.
38. 
Lucena-Martín
C,
González-López
S,
&
Navajas-Rodríguez de Mondelo
JM
(2001)
The effect of various surface treatments and bonding agents on the repaired strength of heat-treated composites
Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
86
(5)
481
-
488
.
39. 
Özcan
M,
Alander
P,
Vallittu
PK,
Huysmans
MC,
&
Kalk
W
(2005)
Effect of three surface conditioning methods to improve bond strength of particulate filler resin composites
Journal of Materials Science. Materials in Medicine
16
(1)
21
-
27
.
40. 
Ferracane
JL
(2006)
Hygroscopic and hydrolytic effects in dental polymer networks
Dental Materials
22
(3)
211
-
222
.
41. 
Shahverdi
S,
Canay
S,
Sahin
E,
&
Bilge
A
(1998)
Effect of different surface treatment methods on the bond strength of composite resin to porcelain
Journal of Oral Rehabilitation
25
(9)
699
-
705
.
42. 
Rodrigues
SA
Ferracane
JL,
&
Della Bona
A
(2008)
Influence of surface treatments on the bond strength of repaired resin composite restorative materials
Dental Materials
25
(4)
442
-
451
.
43. 
Soares
FZM,
Follak
A,
da Rosa
LS,
Montagner
AF,
Lenzi
TL,
&
Rocha
RO
(2016)
Bovine tooth is a substitute for human tooth on bond strength studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies
Dental Materials
33
(11)
1385
-
1393
.

Author notes

Renan Vaz Machry, MSD, PhD graduate student in Oral Sciences (Prosthodontics), Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

Patrícia E Fontana, MSD, PhD graduate student in Oral Sciences (Prosthodontics), Department of Restorative Dentistry (Prosthodontics), Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

Thais Camponogara Bohrer, MSD, PhD graduate student in Oral Sciences (Prosthodontics), Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

*

Luiz Felipe Valandro, MSD, PhD, associate professor, Post-Graduate Program in Oral Science (Prosthodontics-Biomaterials Units), Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil

Osvaldo Bazzan Kaizer, MSD, PhD, associate professor, Post-Graduate Program in Oral Science (Prosthodontics-Biomaterials Units), Faculty of Odontology, Federal University of Santa Maria, Santa Maria, Brazil