OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the influence of endodontic sealers with different chemical compositions on bond strength of resin cement/glass fiber post junction to root dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two maxillary canines roots were instrumented with Reciproc (#R50) and distributed in 6 groups (n = 12) according to endodontic sealers: G1-control (no sealer); G2-Endofill; G3-Sealapex; G4-AH Plus; G5-Sealer Plus; G6-EndoSequence BC. The glass fiber post was cemented with Panavia F in 10 of the specimens. Two specimens from each group did not receive post and were analyzed by SEM to verify presence of filling material. Three slices were obtained from each third. The first slice was subjected to push-out test and type of failure. The second slice was imaged using laser confocal microscopy for evaluation of dentin/resin cement adhesive interface. Bond strength (BS) data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests; for LCM data, we used Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests. RESULTS: Endofill yielded the lowest BS values (p < 0.05). The control and AH Plus groups differed from all others (p < 0.05). In all groups, adhesive to dentin failure predominated. Most specimens of control and AH Plus groups had acceptable interfaces, while those of EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, and Sealer Plus groups ranged between acceptable and poor interfaces. Overall, few filling material remnants were observed on the dentin. CONCLUSION: EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, Sealer Plus, and Endofill negatively interfere with BS of glass fiber post/resin cement junction to root dentin. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cases whose restoration planning includes a post cemented with resin cement, it is recommended that endodontic sealer be based on epoxy resin.
OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the influence of endodontic sealers with different chemical compositions on bond strength of resin cement/glass fiber post junction to root dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-two maxillary canines roots were instrumented with Reciproc (#R50) and distributed in 6 groups (n = 12) according to endodontic sealers: G1-control (no sealer); G2-Endofill; G3-Sealapex; G4-AH Plus; G5-Sealer Plus; G6-EndoSequence BC. The glass fiber post was cemented with Panavia F in 10 of the specimens. Two specimens from each group did not receive post and were analyzed by SEM to verify presence of filling material. Three slices were obtained from each third. The first slice was subjected to push-out test and type of failure. The second slice was imaged using laser confocal microscopy for evaluation of dentin/resin cement adhesive interface. Bond strength (BS) data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests; for LCM data, we used Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests. RESULTS: Endofill yielded the lowest BS values (p < 0.05). The control and AH Plus groups differed from all others (p < 0.05). In all groups, adhesive to dentin failure predominated. Most specimens of control and AH Plus groups had acceptable interfaces, while those of EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, and Sealer Plus groups ranged between acceptable and poor interfaces. Overall, few filling material remnants were observed on the dentin. CONCLUSION: EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, Sealer Plus, and Endofill negatively interfere with BS of glass fiber post/resin cement junction to root dentin. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In cases whose restoration planning includes a post cemented with resin cement, it is recommended that endodontic sealer be based on epoxy resin.