| Literature DB >> 31788326 |
Loghman Rezaei-Soufi1, Leili Tapak2, Mahsa Forouzande3, Reza Fekrazad4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Inadequate retention and gradual debonding of intracanal post from root dentin is a major cause of failure of endodontically treated teeth restored with fiber post. MAIN BODY: This study aimed to assess the effect of surface treatment of quartz fiber posts with different powers and motion directions of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on their pull-out bond strength to root dentin in endodontically treated premolar teeth. In this study, 105 fiber posts were divided into 7 groups according to their surface treatment with different powers of Er,Cr:YSGG laser at 2780 nm wavelength, 20 Hz frequency and 150 μs pulse duration in circumferential (C) or longitudinal (L) motion directions: Control group (no treatment), 0.5 W laser in longitudinally (L0.5), 1.0 W laser in longitudinally (L1), 1.5 W laser in longitudinally (L1.5), 0.5 W laser in circumferentially (C0.5), 1.0 W laser in circumferentially (C1) and 1.5 W laser in circumferentially (C1.5). After cementation, pull-out bond strength was measured in Newton (N). Each sample was inspected under a stereomicroscope at × 25 magnification to determine the mode of failure. Two samples of each group were inspected under a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test with significant level of 0.05. The pull-out bond strength of 0.5 W groups had significant differences with the control group (P = 0.009). The bond strength of 1.0 W and 1.5 W groups were not significantly different (P = 0.630) but were higher than the control and 0.5 W groups (P < 0.001). Motion direction of laser irradiation had no significant effect on the bond strength (P = 0.384). The interaction effect of power and motion direction of laser irradiation had no significant effect on the bond strength (P = 0.092).Entities:
Keywords: Fiber post; Laser; Surface treatment
Year: 2019 PMID: 31788326 PMCID: PMC6858750 DOI: 10.1186/s40824-019-0165-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomater Res ISSN: 1226-4601
Power and motion direction of groups
| groups | control | L 0.5 | C 0.5 | L 1 | C 1 | L 1.5 | C 1.5 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| power | – | 0.5 W | 0.5 W | 1.0 W | 1.0 W | 1.5 W | 1.5 W |
| direction | – | longitudinal | circumferential | longitudinal | circumferential | longitudinal | circumferential |
Summary statistics of bond strength (Newton) for each group (A), two way ANOVA results (B) and post hoc analysis (C)
| A) Statistics of bond strength | ||||
| Group | Mean | Std. Deviation | Minimum | Maximum |
| C1.5 | 241.5733 N | 12.99546 | 219.70 N | 262.10 N |
| L1.5 | 242.3867 N | 12.46686 | 220.70 N | 262.10 N |
| C1.0 | 240.9467 N | 12.86978 | 220.20 N | 262.70 N |
| L1.0 | 238.5933 N | 10.97318 | 221.10 N | 260.10 N |
| C0.5 | 222.9133 N | 6.41826 | 209.90 N | 230.70 N |
| L0.5 | 221.2067 N | 7.34064 | 209.70 N | 232.70 N |
| Control | 218.3267 N | 4.98691 | 209.60 N | 229.40 N |
| Total | 232.2781 N | 14.15982 | 209.60 N | 262.70 N |
| B) ANOVA table | ||||
| Source | F statistics | Df1 | Df2 | |
| Power | 12.038 | 2 | 99 | p < 0.001 |
| Direction | 0.764 | 1 | 99 | 0.384 |
| Interaction | 2.903 | 1 | 99 | 0.092 |
| C) Post hoc analysis for Power | ||||
| Group (I) | Group (J) | Mean Difference (I-J) | Standard Error | |
| Power 0.5 W | Power 1.0 W | −11.990 | 2.836 | |
| Power 1.5 W | −13.794 | 3.563 | ||
| Control | 9.453 | 3.563 | 0.009 | |
| Power 1.0 W | Power 1.5 W | −1.803 | 3.737 | 0.630 |
| Control | 21.443 | 3.737 | ||
| Power 1.5 W | Control | 23.247 | 4.315 | |
Fig. 1Comparison of bond strength
Comparison of different failure modes in different methods of laser surface treatment
| Failure | Groups | Total | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1.5 | L 1.5 | C 1.0 | L 1.0 | C 0.5 | L 0.5 | Control | ||
| Adhesive | 2(13%) | 1(7.6%) | 2(13%) | 2(13%) | 3(20%) | 3(20%) | 2(13%) | 15(14%) |
| Cohesive | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1(7.6%) | 1(7.6%) | 2(1.9%) |
| Mixed | 13(86%) | 14(93%) | 13(86%) | 13(86%) | 12(80%) | 11(73%) | 12(80%) | 88(83%) |
| Total | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 15 | 105 |
Fig. 2SEM micrographs of experimental groups with × 100 and × 500 magnifications. A, Control × 100. B, Control × 500. C, L0.5 × 100. D, L0.5 × 500. E, C0.5 × 100. F, C.05 × 500. G, L1 × 100. H, L1 × 500. I, C1 × 100. J, C1 × 500. K, L1.5 × 100. L, L1.5 × 500. M, C1.5 × 100. N C1.5 × 500