This study compared the performance of a glass ionomer (GC Gold Label 1, GIC) as a fiber post cementation system for glass fiber posts with a self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200, RUC) and a conventional resin cement system (Scotchbond Muli-Purpose and Relyx ARC, RAC). Thirty endodontically treated canines were randomly divided in three groups (n = 10), according to the fiber post cementation system: (RAC)-Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Relyx X ARC; (RUC)-Relyx U200 and (GIC)-GC Gold Label 1 Luting & Lining. Rhodamine was incorporated into the cementation system prior to the fiber post cementation. After glass fiber post cementation, roots were incubated in artificial saliva for 6 months. After that, specimens from the cervical, middle, and apical thirds of the post space were prepared and analyzed using a push-out bond strength test and confocal laser microscopy. ANOVA one way and Tukey tests showed that GIC and RUC demonstrated similar push-out bond strength values, independently of the post space third (p > .05); however, values were greater than those shown by RAC (p < .05). For dentin penetrability, GIC and RUC also had similar results (p > 0.05) and lower than RAC (p < 0.05). Inside the root canal, the cementation system using glass ionomer cement (GC Gold Label 1 Luting & Lining) has similar push-out bond strength to the self-adhesive resin cement (Relyx U200) and these were higher than the conventional resin (Relyx ARC), despite its higher dentin penetrability.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lorenzetti et al. (2019) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: