Cleusa Vieira1, Luciano Bachmann2, Carol De Andrade Lima Chaves3, Yara Teresinha Correa Silva-Sousa4, Silvio Rocha Correa Da Silva4, Edson Alfredo4. 1. Graduate student, School of Dentistry, University of Ribeirão Preto (UNAERP), Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Associate Professor, Physics Department, University of São Paulo (USP), Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: l.b@usp.br. 3. Graduate student, University of Ribeirão Preto (UNAERP), School of Dentistry, Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Professor, School of Dentistry, University of Ribeirão Preto (UNAERP), Ribeirão Preto, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Light transmitted deep into the root canal is an important parameter to increase bonding of the cement to the post and dentin. Glass fiber posts seem to be an option to increase transmitted light, but literature on the light transmittance profile and power transmission to deep canal regions is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate light delivered by 2 types of fiberglass posts submitted to different surface treatments and to evaluate the bond strength. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Whiteposts and Superposts were allocated to 4 groups: no surface treatment, surface treatment with 24% hydrogen peroxide, surface treatment with silane, and surface treatment with 24% hydrogen peroxide plus silane. The total light transmitted by the posts was measured by using an integrating sphere to collect the diffuse light. The light profile that was laterally delivered to the post was measured with a power detector equipped with an optical fiber probe. The bond strength was measured with the push-out test. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the surface treatments. The light transmission data were analyzed by using a generalized linear model and the Bonferroni test and the bond strength values were evaluated by using ANOVA and the Tukey test (α=.05). RESULTS: The cervical third presented the highest transmission (74.1% for Whiteposts and 74.6% for Superposts), followed by the middle (20.9% for Whiteposts and 20.4% for Superposts) and apical (5.0% for both Whiteposts and Superposts) thirds. Superposts led to higher bond strength than Whiteposts (9.73 ±5.89 and 8.48 ±4.99 MPa, respectively). Surface treatment with silane and hydrogen peroxide plus silane afforded similar bond strength (11.4 ±6.4 and 10.7 ±5.6 MPa, respectively), which was higher as compared with the bond strength obtained after surface treatment with hydrogen peroxide. For both post types, the bond strength decreased from the cervical (12.2 ±6.0 MPa) to the middle (9.7 ±5.0 MPa) and apical (6.5 ±3.6 MPa) thirds. CONCLUSIONS: Light transmission and bond strength decreased from the cervical to the apical third. Surface treatment impacted bond strength; light transmission through Whiteposts was slightly higher than light transmission through Superposts.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Light transmitted deep into the root canal is an important parameter to increase bonding of the cement to the post and dentin. Glass fiber posts seem to be an option to increase transmitted light, but literature on the light transmittance profile and power transmission to deep canal regions is lacking. PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate light delivered by 2 types of fiberglass posts submitted to different surface treatments and to evaluate the bond strength. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Whiteposts and Superposts were allocated to 4 groups: no surface treatment, surface treatment with 24% hydrogen peroxide, surface treatment with silane, and surface treatment with 24% hydrogen peroxide plus silane. The total light transmitted by the posts was measured by using an integrating sphere to collect the diffuse light. The light profile that was laterally delivered to the post was measured with a power detector equipped with an optical fiber probe. The bond strength was measured with the push-out test. Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate the surface treatments. The light transmission data were analyzed by using a generalized linear model and the Bonferroni test and the bond strength values were evaluated by using ANOVA and the Tukey test (α=.05). RESULTS: The cervical third presented the highest transmission (74.1% for Whiteposts and 74.6% for Superposts), followed by the middle (20.9% for Whiteposts and 20.4% for Superposts) and apical (5.0% for both Whiteposts and Superposts) thirds. Superposts led to higher bond strength than Whiteposts (9.73 ±5.89 and 8.48 ±4.99 MPa, respectively). Surface treatment with silane and hydrogen peroxide plus silane afforded similar bond strength (11.4 ±6.4 and 10.7 ±5.6 MPa, respectively), which was higher as compared with the bond strength obtained after surface treatment with hydrogen peroxide. For both post types, the bond strength decreased from the cervical (12.2 ±6.0 MPa) to the middle (9.7 ±5.0 MPa) and apical (6.5 ±3.6 MPa) thirds. CONCLUSIONS: Light transmission and bond strength decreased from the cervical to the apical third. Surface treatment impacted bond strength; light transmission through Whiteposts was slightly higher than light transmission through Superposts.