Evaluation of different surface treatments on fiber post cemented with a self-adhesive system

Prado, Maíra do; Marques, Juliana das Neves; Pereira, Gisele Damiana da Silveira; Silva, Eduardo M. da; Simão, Renata Antoun

doi:10.1016/j.msec.2017.03.141

Cited by 30 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Silane coupling agents are molecules with two functional groups, wherein the first functional group should react with hydroxyl groups of cellulose, and the second functional group should react with the matrix. Moreover, silane coupling agents have been an effective modifying method for natural fiber–matrix interfaces by reducing the hydroxyl groups of the fiber [ 139 , 140 , 141 , 142 ]. This treatment has been shown to contribute to the improvement of mechanical and water resistance of cement composites as well as enhancing the interfacial adhesion between the fibers and the matrix [ 71 , 143 ].…”

Section: Pre-treatments Of Natural Fibers Used As Reinforcement Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review on Natural Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Cement-Based Composites

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of ecological materials for building and industrial applications contributes to minimizing the environmental impact of new technologies. In this context, the cement and geopolymer sectors are considering natural fibers as sustainable reinforcement for developing composites. Natural fibers are renewable, biodegradable, and non-toxic, and they exhibit attractive mechanical properties in comparison with their synthetic fiber counterparts. However, their hydrophilic character makes them vulnerable to high volumes of moisture absorption, thus conferring poor wetting with the matrix and weakening the fiber–matrix interface. Therefore, modification and functionalization strategies for natural fibers to tailor interface properties and to improve the durability and mechanical behavior of cement and geopolymer-based composites become highly important. This paper presents a review of the physical, chemical and biological pre-treatments that have been performed on natural fibers, their results and effects on the fiber–matrix interface of cement and geopolymer composites. In addition, the degradation mechanisms of natural fibers used in such composites are discussed. This review finalizes with concluding remarks and recommendations to be addressed through further in-depth studies in the field.

show abstract

Section: Pre-treatments Of Natural Fibers Used As Reinforcement Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Review on Natural Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Cement-Based Composites

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The most common cause of clinical failures of FP and CC system has been found to be adhesion failure or debonding of the post at either the resin or dentin interfaces ( Monticelli et al, 2003 , Barfeie et al, 2015 , Cagidiaco et al, 2008 , Ferrari et al, 2000b ). Therefore, the bond strength between FP, CC, and luting agent is essential for clinical success ( Sahafi et al, 2003 , Cardoso et al, 2002 , Bitter and Kielbassa, 2007 , Prado et al, 2017 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several methods of FP surface treatment have been advocated to increase the bond strength ( Mosharraf and Baghaei Yazdi, 2012 , Kim et al, 2013 ). These methods are generally categorized into three categories ( Monticelli et al, 2008 ), namely (1) chemical treatment with various concentrations of one of the following materials: phosphoric acid, hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen peroxide, methylene chloride ( Yenisey and Kulunk, 2008 , Elsaka, 2013 , Prado et al, 2017 ), potassium permanganate, sodium ethoxide ( Monticelli et al, 2006a ) or hydrochloric acid ( Monticelli et al, 2006b ); (2) micromechanical roughening of the surface by sandblasting technique using aluminum oxide or silica particles ( Zicari et al, 2012 , Sahafi et al, 2003 , Sahafi et al, 2004 , Cekic-Nagas et al, 2011 ); and (3) combination of chemical and micro-mechanical treatments ( Monticelli et al, 2008 ). These methods of treatments increase the FP surface roughness to enhance the mechanical attachment of the bonded surfaces, and/or expose the fibers through the removal of the matrix enabling salinization and chemical adhesion of the bonded surfaces.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of different surface treatment methods on bond strength between fiber post and composite core material

Alshahrani

Albaqami

Naji

et al. 2021

The Saudi Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose To assess the impact of different surface treatments on the push-out bond strength between fiber post and a composite resin core material. Material and methods Seventy-two glass-fiber posts were randomly assigned into six groups according to the method of surface treatment: Control (no treatment), silane, sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid, hydrogen peroxide, and hydrogen peroxide with sandblasting. Two posts from each group were inspected under a scanning electron microscope to assess the surface modifications and 10 posts were employed for the push-out test. Each post was placed vertically in the middle of a cylindrical putty matrix and a dual-cure composite resin material was applied for core build-up. Two discs of each specimen were cut using a low-speed diamond saw (total 120 discs). The push-out test was executed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test ( p ≤ 0.05). The mode of failure of each disc was evaluated under SEM. Results The sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid groups presented significantly higher bond strength than control and hydrogen peroxide groups. The hydrogen peroxide groups exhibited significantly the lowest bond strength of all groups. There was no significant difference between the control and silane groups. All groups showed predominantly adhesive failure except the hydrogen peroxide with sandblasting, where the cohesive failure of the post was predominant. Conclusions Sandblasting and hydrofluoric acid surface treatments demonstrated superior results to silane and hydrogen peroxide. The combined method of hydrogen peroxide and sandblasting could weaken the fiber post and lead to clinical fractures.

show abstract

“…Also, evidence shows that heat-treated silane significantly increases the push-out bond strength of fiber posts to root dentin [6]. However, use of silane-sandblasting with aluminum oxide and plasma (NH 3 and HMDSO) yields superior results compared to the application of 24% hydrogen peroxide [7].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of motion direction and power of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on pull-out bond strength of fiber post to root dentin in endodontically-treated single-canal premolar teeth

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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). Conclusion: Fiber posts treated with 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5 W Er,Cr:YSGG laser showed higher bond strength to dentin compared to posts with no surface treatment. However, the motion directions of laser irradiation had no significant effect on the bond strength. In order to minimize damage to post surface and achieving maximum bond strength, longitudinal surface treatment of posts with 1.0 W power of Er,Cr:YSGG laser is recommended.

show abstract

Evaluation of different surface treatments on fiber post cemented with a self-adhesive system

Cited by 30 publications

References 23 publications

A Review on Natural Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Cement-Based Composites

A Review on Natural Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Cement-Based Composites

Impact of different surface treatment methods on bond strength between fiber post and composite core material

Effects of motion direction and power of Er,Cr:YSGG laser on pull-out bond strength of fiber post to root dentin in endodontically-treated single-canal premolar teeth

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About