The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics (대한치과보철학회지)

The Korean Academy of Prosthodonitics (대한치과보철학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

In vitro study of microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with different adhesive systems and fiber-reinforced posts

다양한 접착시스템을 이용하여 섬유 강화형 포스트로 수복한 치아에서의 미세누출에 관한 연구

  • Park, Joon-Ho (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Choi, Yu-Sung (Department of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 박준호 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실) ;
  • 최유성 (단국대학교 치과대학 치과보철학교실)
  • Received : 2014.02.25
  • Accepted : 2014.04.14
  • Published : 2014.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose: While studies have examined microleakage in endodontically treated teeth restored with posts, microleakage among post and adhesive systems remains a concern. This study compared the sealing properties of 3 adhesively luted post systems. Materials and methods: Thirty-six endodontically treated permanent maxillary central incisors were divided into 3 groups: Zirconia-glass fiber, Quartz-glass fiber, Polyethylene fiber posts. Post space was prepared and each post was adhesively luted with 3 systems. The specimens were separately immersed in freshly prepared 2% methylene blue solution for 1 week. The cleaned specimens were then embedded in autopolymerizing acrylic resin. The root portion of tooth were horizontally sectioned into three pieces (apical, middle, and coronal portions). An occlusal view of each section was digitally photographed with a stereomicroscope. The methylene blue-infiltrated surface for each specimen was measured. Dye penetration was estimated as the ratio of the methylene blue-infiltrated surface to the total dentin surface. Results: No significant differences were found among post types. The variables of middle section and 3-stage adhesive produced significant differences in microleakage between the following post pairs: zirconia-glass fiber versus quartz-glass fiber, zirconia-glass fiber versus polyethylene fiber, and quartz-glass fiber versus polyethylene fiber (P<.05). There were significant differences between the apical and coronal sections of each post type, and between apical versus middle sections of quarze-glass fiber and polyethylene fiber posts (P<.05). Conclusion: No significant differences were found among post types. The 3-stage adhesive produced significant differences in microleakage between the following post pairs.

연구 목적: 포스트로 수복한 치아의 미세누출을 방지하기 위한 다양한 술식이 개발되고 있고 이에 본 연구에서는 다양한 접착시스템을 이용하여 섬유 강화형 포스트로 수복한 치아에서의 치근부 미세누출에 대해 비교 연구하고자 하였다. 연구 재료 및 방법: 36개의 근관치료된 상악 영구 중절치를 3가지 포스트 그룹으로 분류하였다: Zirconia-glass fiber, Quarze-glass fiber, Polyethylene fiber 포스트. 포스트 공간이 형성되었고 각 포스트는 세가지 접착시스템으로 접착되었다: 3-stage total-etch adhesive, 2-stage total-etch adhesive, 1-stage self-etch adhesive. 각 시편들을 2% 메틸렌 블루 용액에 1주일 동안 담구었다. 세척한 시편을 자가중합 아크릴릭 레진에 포매하였다. 각 시편을 치근단, 중앙, 치관 부위로 수평 절단하였다. 메틸렌 블루가 침투된 각 시편의 절단부를 교합면 측에서 stereomicroscope로 측정하였다. 시료 침투량은 메틸렌 블루 침투 표면과 총 상아질 표면의 비율로 평가하였다. 결과: 모든 절단부위에서 모든 군들은 미세 누출을 보였다. 각 절단 부위별로 접착 시스템에 따른 포스트간의 비교에서는 유의한 차이는 없었다. All Bond 2로 접착한 3단계 접착시스템으로 처리한 치아 중앙절편에서 zirconia-glass fiber와 quarze-glass fiber 포스트 간, zirconia-glass fiber와 polyethylene fiber 포스트 간, quarze-glass fiber와 polyethylene fiber 포스트 간에 미세누출에는 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 각각의 포스트의 치근단과 치관 부위 사이에는 유의한 차이가 있었고, quarze-glass fiber와 polyethylene fiber 포스트에서 치근단과 중앙 부위 사이에 유의한 차이가 있었다(P<.05). 결론: 포스트 종류에 따른 접착 시스템 간에 미세누출의 유의한 차이가 없었다. 각 절단 부위별로 접착 시스템에 따른 포스트간의 비교에서는 유의한 차이는 없었으나, 유일하게 3단계 접착시스템으로 처리한 포스트의 중앙절편에서 zirconia-glass fiber가 다른 포스트에 비해 유의하게 적은 미세누출을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Erkut S, Gulsahi K, Caglar A, Imirzalioglu P, Karbhari VM, Ozmen I. Microleakage in overflared root canals restored with different fiber reinforced dowels. Oper Dent 2008;33:96-105. https://doi.org/10.2341/07-47
  2. Segerstro¨m S, Astba¨ck J, Ekstrand KD. A retrospective long term study of teeth restored with prefabricated carbon fiber reinforced epoxy resin posts. Swed Dent J 2006;30:1-8.
  3. Usumez A, Cobankara FK, Ozturk N, Eskitascioglu G, Belli S. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth with different dowel systems. J Prosthet Dent 2004;92:163-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.05.004
  4. Akkayan B, Gu¨lmez T. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth restored with different post systems. J Prosthet Dent 2002;87:431-7. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2002.123227
  5. Fredriksson M, Astback J, Pamenius M, Arvidson K. A retrospective study of 236 patients with teeth restored by carbon fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:151-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70103-9
  6. Assif D, Bitenski A, Pilo R, Oren E. Effect of post design on resistance to fracture of endodontically treated teeth with complete crowns. J Prosthet Dent 1993;69:36-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(93)90237-I
  7. Sorensen JA, Martinoff JT. Clinically significant factors in dowel design. J Prosthet Dent 1984;52:28-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90176-8
  8. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Garcl′a-Godoy F. Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced epoxy resin posts and cast post and cores. Am J Dent 2000;13:15B-18B.
  9. Sidoli GE, King PA, Setchell DJ. An in vitro evaluation of a carbon fiber-based post and core system. J Prosthet Dent 1997; 78:5-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(97)70080-5
  10. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Intermittent loading of teeth restored using quartz fiber, carbon-quartz fiber, and zirconium dioxide ceramic root canal posts. J Adhes Dent 1999;1:153-8.
  11. Vichi A, Grandini S, Davidson CL, Ferrari M. An SEM evaluation of several adhesive systems used for bonding fiber posts under clinical conditions. Dent Mater 2002;18:495-502. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00065-3
  12. Boschian Pest L, Cavalli G, Bertani P, Gagliani M. Adhesive postendodontic restorations with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. Dent Mater 2002;18:596-602. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00003-9
  13. Goracci C, Sadek FT, Fabianelli A, Tay FR, Ferrari M. Evaluation of the adhesion of fiber posts to intraradicular dentin. Oper Dent 2005;30:627-35.
  14. Goracci C, Fabianelli A, Sadek FT, Papacchini F, Tay FR, Ferrari M. The contribution of friction to the dislocation resistance of bonded fiber posts. J Endod 2005;31:608-12. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000153841.23594.91
  15. Pirani C, Chersoni S, Foschi F, Piana G, Loushine RJ, Tay FR, Prati C. Does hybridization of intraradicular dentin really improve fiber post retention in endodontically treated teeth? J Endod 2005;31:891-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000164853.92310.e7
  16. Mak YF, Lai SC, Cheung GS, Chan AW, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Micro-tensile bond testing of resin cements to dentin and an indirect resin composite. Dent Mater 2002;18:609-21. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00005-2
  17. Freedman GA. Esthetic post-and-core treatment. Dent Clin North Am 2001;45:103-16.
  18. Mannocci F, Ferrari M, Watson TF. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber posts and composite cores after cyclic loading: a confocal microscopic study. J Prosthet Dent 2001;85:284-91. https://doi.org/10.1067/mpr.2001.113706
  19. Jung SH, Min KS, Chang HS, Park SD, Kwon SN, Bae JM. Microleakage and fracture patterns of teeth restored with different posts under dynamic loading. J Prosthet Dent 2007;98:270-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(07)60100-0
  20. Goto Y, Nicholls JI, Phillips KM, Junge T. Fatigue resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with three dowel-andcore systems. J Prosthet Dent 2005;93:45-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2004.09.026
  21. Yang B, Ludwig K, Adelung R, Kern M. Micro-tensile bond strength of three luting resins to human regional dentin. Dent Mater 2006;22:45-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2005.02.009
  22. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60212-2
  23. Saunders WP, Saunders EM. Coronal leakage as a cause of failure in root-canal therapy: a review. Endod Dent Traumatol 1994;10:105-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1994.tb00533.x
  24. Swartz DB, Skidmore AE, Griffin JA Jr. Twenty years of endodontic success and failure. J Endod 1983;9:198-202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(83)80092-2
  25. Demirel F, Saygili G, Sahmali S. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with prefabricated posts and tooth-colored restorative materials. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2005;25:73-9.
  26. Drummond JL, Bapna MS. Static and cyclic loading of fiberreinforced dental resin. Dent Mater 2003;19:226-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00034-9
  27. Cohen BI, Pagnillo MK, Newman I, Musikant BL, Deutsch AS. Pilot study of the cyclic fatigue characteristics of five endodontic posts with four core materials. J Oral Rehabil 2000;27: 83-92. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.2000.00470.x
  28. Chersoni S, Acquaviva GL, Prati C, Ferrari M, Grandini S, Pashley DH, Tay FR. In vivo fluid movement through dentin adhesives in endodontically treated teeth. J Dent Res 2005;84: 223-7. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400303
  29. Fogel HM. Microleakage of posts used to restore endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 1995;21:376-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80974-X
  30. Tjan AH, Grant BE, Dunn JR. Microleakage of composite resin cores treated with various dentin bonding systems. J Prosthet Dent 1991;66:24-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90346-X
  31. Bachicha WS, DiFiore PM, Miller DA, Lautenschlager EP, Pashley DH. Microleakage of endodontically treated teeth restored with posts. J Endod 1998;24:703-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(98)80157-X
  32. Wu MK, Pehlivan Y, Kontakiotis EG, Wesselink PR. Microleakage along apical root fillings and cemented posts. J Prosthet Dent 1998;79:264-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70235-5
  33. Mannocci F, Qualtrough AJ, Worthington HV, Watson TF, Pitt Ford TR. Randomized clinical comparison of endodontically treated teeth restored with amalgam or with fiber posts and resin composite: five-year results. Oper Dent 2005;30:9-15.
  34. Lambjerg-Hansen H, Asmussen E. Mechanical properties of endodontic posts. J Oral Rehabil 1997;24:882-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2842.1997.00598.x
  35. Ferrari M, Vichi A, Grandini S. Efficacy of different adhesive techniques on bonding to root canal walls: an SEM investigation. Dent Mater 2001;17:422-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00102-0
  36. Albashaireh ZS, Ghazal M, Kern M. Effect of dentin conditioning on retention of airborne-particle-abraded, adhesively luted glass fiber-reinforced resin posts. J Prosthet Dent 2008;100:367-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(08)60238-3
  37. Bouillaguet S, Troesch S, Wataha JC, Krejci I, Meyer JM, Pashley DH. Microtensile bond strength between adhesive cements and root canal dentin. Dent Mater 2003;19:199-205. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(02)00030-1
  38. Ravanshad S, Ghoreeshi N. An in vitro study of coronal microleakage in endodontically-treated teeth restored with posts. Aust Endod J 2003;29:128-33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4477.2003.tb00536.x
  39. Eskitaccioglu G, Belli S, Kalkan M. Evaluation of two post core systems using two different methods (fracture strength test and a finite elemental stress analysis). J Endod 2002;28:629-33. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200209000-00001
  40. Ray HA, Trope M. Periapical status of endodontically treated teeth in relation to the technical quality of the root filling and the coronal restoration. Int Endod J 1995;28:12-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1995.tb00150.x