AIM: To evaluate the adhesive strength of Resilon to Next root canal sealant (Heraeus-Kulzer), a methacrylate-based root canal sealer, using a modified microshear bond testing design. METHODOLOGY: Flat Resilon surfaces of different roughnesses (smooth surface and surface roughness equivalent to 320-grit and 180-grit) were prepared by compression moulding for bonding to the sealer and compared with a composite control. The shear strength data were statistically analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way anova on ranks and Dunn's multiple comparison tests (alpha = 0.05). After shear testing, fractured specimens were examined using a field emission-scanning electron microscope for detailed analysis of the failure modes. RESULTS: The composite control exhibited significantly higher mean shear strength (7.62 MPa) that was 4.4-4.7 times those of the Resilon groups (1.64-1.74 MPa; P < 0.001). Increasing the surface roughness of the Resilon surface did not contribute to further improvement in shear bond strength for this methacrylate-based sealer (P > 0.05). Failure modes in the composite control were cohesive and mixed failures, while those in the Resilon groups were predominantly adhesive failures, with a small percentage of mixed failures. Ultrastructural evidence of phase separation of polymeric components could be identified in Resilon. Both intact, non deformed and plastically deformed Resilon surfaces could be observed in specimens that exhibited adhesive failures. CONCLUSION: The low shear strength of Resilon to a methacrylate-based sealer compared with a composite control suggests that the amount of dimethacrylate incorporated in this filled, polycaprolactone-based thermoplastic composite may not yet be optimized for effective chemical coupling to methacrylate resins.
AIM: To evaluate the adhesive strength of Resilon to Next root canal sealant (Heraeus-Kulzer), a methacrylate-based root canal sealer, using a modified microshear bond testing design. METHODOLOGY: Flat Resilon surfaces of different roughnesses (smooth surface and surface roughness equivalent to 320-grit and 180-grit) were prepared by compression moulding for bonding to the sealer and compared with a composite control. The shear strength data were statistically analysed using Kruskal-Wallis one-way anova on ranks and Dunn's multiple comparison tests (alpha = 0.05). After shear testing, fractured specimens were examined using a field emission-scanning electron microscope for detailed analysis of the failure modes. RESULTS: The composite control exhibited significantly higher mean shear strength (7.62 MPa) that was 4.4-4.7 times those of the Resilon groups (1.64-1.74 MPa; P < 0.001). Increasing the surface roughness of the Resilon surface did not contribute to further improvement in shear bond strength for this methacrylate-based sealer (P > 0.05). Failure modes in the composite control were cohesive and mixed failures, while those in the Resilon groups were predominantly adhesive failures, with a small percentage of mixed failures. Ultrastructural evidence of phase separation of polymeric components could be identified in Resilon. Both intact, non deformed and plastically deformed Resilon surfaces could be observed in specimens that exhibited adhesive failures. CONCLUSION: The low shear strength of Resilon to a methacrylate-based sealer compared with a composite control suggests that the amount of dimethacrylate incorporated in this filled, polycaprolactone-based thermoplastic composite may not yet be optimized for effective chemical coupling to methacrylate resins.