Shanghai Journal of Stomatology ›› 2014, Vol. 23 ›› Issue (6): 689-694.

• Basic Study • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of fiber posts to resin cement

ZHENG Hu, GUO Jian-qing, ZHANG Xian-fang   

  1. 1.Department of Stomatology, Dahua Hospital, Xuhui District. Shanghai 200237;
    2. Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Center of Xuhui District. Shanghai 200032, China
  • Received:2014-05-30 Revised:2014-07-04 Online:2014-12-20 Published:2015-01-08
  • Supported by:
    Research Project of Science and Technology Commission of Xuhui District (SHXH201138)

Abstract: PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of five different surface treatments on the bond strength between fiber posts and resin cement. METHODS: Fifty fiber posts were randomly divided into 5 groups for different surface treatments. Group A was treated with silane coupling agent (Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator,Kuraray); Group B was treated with silane coupling agent and then coated with dentin bonding agent (Clearfil SE Bond,Kuraray); Group C was immersed in 30%H2O2; Group D was immersed in 30%H2O2 and then treated with silane coupling agent; Group E received no surface treatment (control group). After bonding to resin cement, each group was then divided into 2 subgroups equally,while one group was stored in sodium chloride for 24 h at 37℃, and the other group was stored in sodium chloride for 24 h at 37℃ and then subjected to thermal cycling for 10000 times. Microtensile bond strengths were tested and the data was statistically analyzed using SPSS17.0 software package. RESULTS: The microtensile bond strength before thermal cycling was(6.7±0.7) MPa for group A,(14.4±1.1) MPa for group B,(10.7±0.9) MPa for group C,(16.0±1.0) MPa for group D and (6.7±1.0) MPa for group E. After thermal cycling, the microtensile bond strength was (6.7±0.7) MPa for group A, (13.1±0.7) MPa for group B, (9.0±0.7) MPa for group C, (15.0±0.9) MPa for group D and (5.6±0.7) MPa for group E. The results showed that surface treatments had significant impact on the bond strength (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between group A and group E. Group D had the highest bond strength compared with the other groups. Microtensile bond strengths were significantly different before and after thermalcycling treatment in each group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Thermocycling treatment decreases the bond strength of fiber posts to resin cement with these 5 surface treatments. Coupled with 30%H2O2 solution and silanization, the bonding strength of fiber posts to resin cement can increase significantly.

Key words: Fiber posts, Surface treatment, Microtensil test, Thermocycling

CLC Number: