Does Curing Delay Affect the Bond Strength of Fiber Post with Self-Adhesive Cements?

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of three different curing protocols based on different ratios of self-curing and light-curing periods on the bond strength and nanoleakage of fiber posts luted with dual-curing self-adhesive cements. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 48 single-root teeth were endodontically treated and obturated, and an 8-mm post space was prepared with dedicated drills. Specimens were randomly divided into two groups according to the self-adhesive cement employed: group 1 (G1) = PANAVIA SA Plus (Kuraray Noritake), and group 2 (G2) = Bifix SE (VOCO). The specimens were further divided into three subgroups (n = 8 each) according to the light-curing protocol applied: no light-curing (SG1), 20 seconds of light-curing 20 seconds after cement injection (SG2), and 20 seconds of light-curing 120 seconds after cement injection (SG3). Slices of 1-mm thickness were prepared for the pushout test and nanoleakage analyses of the coronal and apical regions after 24 hours of storage in artificial saliva. Results were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests. Statistical significance was set for P < .05. RESULTS: Three-way ANOVA analysis showed that the factors of cement (P = .02) and curing protocol (P < .001) had a significant influence on bond strength. Tukey post hoc test reported that light-curing 120 seconds after injection showed higher bond strength compared to both no light-curing and photoactivation after 20 seconds. CONCLUSION: To achieve the highest bond strength with self-adhesive cements, photoactivation with a 120-second delay after mixing is required. There is no difference between light-curing immediately and light-curing 20 seconds after mixing.

Influence of Curing Mode and Layering Technique on the 3D Interfacial Gap of Bulk-fill Resin Composites in Deep Class-I Restorations: A Micro-CT Volumetric Study.

PURPOSE: To three-dimensionally evaluate the interfacial gap of bulk-fill resin composites applied in deep Class-I restorations with different layering techniques and curing modes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six (n = 96) samples were prepared with standardized deep Class-I cavities and adhesive procedures. Four materials were tested: SDR (SDR), SonicFill2 (SF), Admira Fusion X-Tra (AFXT), Filtek Supreme XTE (FS). Four subgroups (n = 6) were created according to layering and curing techniques: 2+2mm increments with soft start curing (SG1), 2+2 mm with conventional curing (SG2), a 4-mm increment with soft start curing (SG3), a 4-mm increment with conventional curing (SG4). All samples underwent micro-CT scans; afterwards, voids surrounding the restorations automatically underwent a thresholding procedure (Mimics, Materialise; Geomagic Studio 12, 3D Systems) to analyze the 3D interfacial gap. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Tukey's test (significance p < 0.05). RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were reported between materials, layering techniques and their interaction. No statistically significant differences were reported for polymerisation mode. Bulk-fill materials showed average interfacial gap volumes ranging from 0.031 mm3 to 0.200 mm3, while FS showed volumes ranging from 0.416 mm3 to 1200 mm3. CONCLUSIONS: All bulk-fill materials performed statistically significantly better than did FS (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant differences between them. Curing mode did not influence interfacial gap volume in any group (p > 0.05), while bulk-filling vs layering influenced the volume of interfacial gaps only in the FS group, which performied better when incrementally applied. Regarding gap localisation, the floor of the cavity was the area with the highest likelihood of gaps in all samples.

3D Interfacial Gap and Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Premolars Restored with Fiber-reinforced Composites.

PURPOSE: To evaluate interfacial gap and fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars, restored with different glass-fiber reinforced materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty-four extracted intact premolars were endodontically treated and MOD cavities prepared. Specimens were divided into 7 groups (n = 12 for each) as follows: sound teeth (G1); no restoration (G2); direct composite restoration with fiber-reinforced composite (everX Posterior GC) (G3); direct composite restoration (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M Oral Care; "FSXTE") (G4); a horizontal layer of high-viscosity flowable composite (G-ænial Flow, GC) was placed on the pulp chamber floor, 10 mm x 3 mm glass fibers (everStick NET, GC) were inserted into the cavity (G5); same procedure as in group 5 except the direct restoration was made incrementally with FSXTE (3M Oral Care) (G6); composite overlays were placed (G7). Specimens were scanned with micro-CT to evaluate 3D interfacial gaps before and after chewing simulation using Mimics software to calculate voids between restoration and tooth (dentin and enamel). These data (in mm3) were collected for statistical analysis. Thereafter, specimens were loaded to fracture using a universal testing machine. Maximum breaking loads were recorded in Newton (N). The data obtained were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test (p < 0.05). RESULTS: ANOVA showed that horizontal glass-fiber insertions statistically significantly reduced interfacial gaps after chewing simulation. No differences in fracture resistance were found between Filtek Supreme XTE and everX Posterior; moreover, glass-fiber insertion did not significantly improve fracture resistance in either case. Composite overlays achieved significantly better fracture toughness than did direct restorations. CONCLUSIONS: For the direct restoration of endodontically treated premolars, the insertion of glass fibers into direct composite restorations was unable to guarantee a significant increase in the fracture resistance or a significant change in the fracture pattern. However, it significantly reduced interfacial gap volume after cycling fatigue.