Volume 29, Issue 4 (Avicenna Journal of Clinical Medicine-Winter 2023)                   Avicenna J Clin Med 2023, 29(4): 240-247 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

1- Students Research Committee, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
2- Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran
3- Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Arak University of Medical Sciences, Arak, Iran , afr_na_sa@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (1173 Views)
Background and Objective: Tooth decay and periodontal problems are among the most common human diseases which are considered unsolved health problems in most countries of the world. This study aimed to investigate and compare the shear bond strength of the fiber post with three different types of cement, including Glass ionomer, as well as Universal and Flowable composites.
Materials and Methods: This in-vitro study was conducted on 30 extracted anterior deciduous teeth with at least two-thirds of healthy roots. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 10. The teeth were mounted from the root part inside the self-curing acryl. Group 1 includes G-Premio Bond and Universal Composite, group 2 includes G-Premio Bond and flowable composite, and group 3 includes Glass ionomer without bond. Immediately, the fiber post was placed in the cemented material in the canal and was light-cured according to the manufacturer's instructions. Shear bond strength was performed by an electromechanical universal testing machine at a speed of 1 mm/min.
Results: The shear bond strength mean values in the Universal composite, Glass ionomer, and Flowable composite groups were 15.29±4.82, 9.74±2.82, and 13.71±4.91 MPa, respectively, and the difference among them was significant (P=0.022). The shear bond strength mean value of the Universal composite was significantly higher than that of the Glass ionomer (P=0.020); however, this difference was not significant for comparing other groups (P<0.05).
Conclusion: The highest and lowest amount of shear bond strength values for cementing fiber post in the repair of anterior deciduous teeth were related to the Universal composite and Glass ionomer cement groups, respectively, which showed a significant difference but did not differ significantly from the Flowable composite group
Full-Text [PDF 485 kb]   (680 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Original | Subject: Pediatric Dentistry

1. Lewis CW, Grossman DC, Domoto PK, Deyo RA. The role of the pediatrician in the oral health of children: A national survey. Pediatrics. 2000;106(6):E84. PMID:11099627. DOI:10.1542/peds.106.6.e84
2. Kumarihamy SL, Subasinghe LD, Jayasekara P, Kularatna SM, Palipana PD. The prevalence of Early Childhood Caries in 1-2 yrs olds in a semi-urban area of Sri Lanka. BMC Res Notes. 2011;4:336. PMID:21902840. DOI:10.1186/1756-0500-4-336
3. Nokhostin MR, Siahkamari A, Akbarzadeh BA. Evaluation of oral and dental health of 6-12 year-old students in Kermanshah city. Iran South Med J. 2013;16(3):241-9.
4. Ajami B, Abachizadeh H, Shafieyan R, Aminifar S. Evaluation of microleakage in pulpotomized primary molars restored with Core max II: an in vitro study. J Mashhad Dent School. 2012;36(3):231-8.
5. Sadri L, Sadri S, Akhlaghi N, Sarlak H. Esthetic-based dental management of dentinogenesis imperfecta in a 2.5-year-old child. J Kerman Univ Med Sci. 2021;28(6):603-9. DOI:10.22062/jkmu.2021.91838
6. Viera CL, Ribeiro CC. Polyethylene fiber tape used as a post and core in decayed primary anterior teeth: a treatment option. J Clin Pediatri Dent. 2001;26(1):1-4. PMID:11688805.
7. Calvo AF, Kicuti A, Tedesco TK, Braga MM, Raggio DP. Evaluation of the relationship between the cost and properties of glass ionomer cements indicated for atraumatic restorative treatment. Braz Oral Res. 2016;30:1806-83242016000100201. PMID:26676191. DOI:10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2016.vol30.0008
8. Mosharrafian S, Sharifi Z. Comparison of push-out bond strength of two bulk-fill and one conventional composite to intracanal dentin in severely damaged primary anterior teeth. J Dent. 2016;13(3):207-14. PMID:28392818.
9. Pameijer CH. A review of luting agents. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:752861. PMID:22505909. DOI:10.1155/2012/752861
10. Bayrak S, Tunc ES, Tuloglu N. Polyethylene fiber-reinforced composite resin used as a short post in severely decayed primary anterior teeth: a case report. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endodont. 2009;107(5):60-4. PMID:19272811. DOI:10.1016/j.tripleo.2008.12.051.
11. Afshar H, Baradaran Nakhjavani Y, Rahro Taban S, Baniameri Z, Nahvi A. Bond strength of 5(th), 6(th) and 7(th) generation bonding agents to intracanal dentin of primary teeth. J Dent. 2015;12(2):90-8. PMID:26056518
12. Kamble SS, Kandasamy B, Thillaigovindan R, Goyal NK, Talukdar P, Seal M. In vitro Comparative evaluation of tensile bond strength of 6th, 7th and 8th generation dentin bonding agents. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7(5):41-3. PMID: 26028901
13. Kasraei S, Atai M, Khamverdi Z, Nejad SK. The effect of nanofiller addition to an experimental dentin adhesive on microtensile bond strength to human dentin. Front Dent. 2009;6(2):36-41.
14. Jordehi AY, Shahabi MS, Akbari A. Comparison of self-adhering flowable composite microleakage with several types of bonding agent in class V cavity restoration. Dent Res J. 2019;16(4):257-63. PMID:31303881
15. Suwarnkar SD, Prasad VN, Khan R, Sirikonda S. Posts in primary teeth-a literature review. J Interdisciplinary Dent Sci. 2017;6(2):3.
16. Seraj B, Ghadimi S, Estaki Z, Fatemi M. Fracture resistance of three different posts in restoration of severely damaged primary anterior teeth: An in vitro study. Dent Res J. 2015;12(4):372-8. PMID:26286271. DOI:10.4103/1735-3327.161461
17. Beldüz Kara N, Kanyilmaz T, Çankaya S, Kara C. Evaluation of the effect of different post materials and adhesive systems on the bonding strength of short-post technique for primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2018;28(2):239-48. PMID:29172020. DOI:10.1111/ipd.12347
18. Al-Hana DA, El-Messairy A, Shohayb F, Alhadainy H. Micro-shear bond strength of different composites and glass-ionomers used to reinforce root dentin. Tanta Dent J. 2013;10(2):58-66. DOI:10.1016/j.tdj.2013.08.004
19. Ranjpour M, Houshmand T, Mirzabeigi S. The effect of enamel moisture on tensile bond strength of composite resin using Single bond in total etch technique. Iranian J Pediatr Dent. 2014;10(1):51-8. DOI:10.29252/ijpd.10.1.51
20. Pereira JR, Lins do Valle A, Ghizoni JS, Lorenzoni FC, Ramos MB, Dos Reis Só MV. Push-out bond strengths of different dental cements used to cement glass fiber posts. J Prosthet Dent. 2013;110(2):134-40. PMID:23929375. DOI:10.1016/S0022-3913(13)60353-4
21. Gurbuz T, Sengul F, Altun C. Finite element stress analysis of short-post core and over restorations prepared with different restorative materials. Dent Mater J. 2008;27(4):499-507. PMID:18833762. DOI:10.4012/dmj.27.499
22. Scribante A, Bollardi M, Chiesa M, Poggio C, Colombo M. Flexural properties and elastic modulus of different esthetic restorative materials: Evaluation after exposure to acidic drink. Bio Med Res Int. 2019;2019:5109481. PMID:30863779. DOI:10.1155/2019/5109481
23. Pasdar N, Seraj B, Fatemi M, Taravati S. Push-out bond strength of different intracanal posts in the anterior primary teeth according to root canal filling materials. Dent Res J. 2017;14(5):336-43. PMID: 29109749. DOI:10. 4103/1735-3327.215959
24. Memarpour M, Shafiei F, Abbaszadeh M. Retentive strength of different intracanal posts in restorations of anterior primary teeth: an in vitro study. Restor Dent Endod. 2013;38(4):215-21. PMID:24303356. DOI:10.5395/rde.2013.38.4.215
25. Waggoner WF. Restoring primary anterior teeth: updated for 2014. Pediatr Dent. 2015;37(2):163-70. PMID:25905657.

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.