International Endodontic Journal, vol.36, no.11, pp.770-773, 2003 (SCI-Expanded)
Aim: To compare the fracture resistance of root-filled premolar teeth restored with new-generation dentine bonding adhesives. Methodology: Sixty extracted single-rooted human maxillary premolar teeth were used. Access cavities were prepared, and the roots were instrumented with K-files to an apical size 50 using a step-back technique. Root fillings were accomplished using gutta percha (Sure-Endo, Seoul, Korea) and AH Plus root canal sealer (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) using the lateral condensation technique. The teeth were then randomly divided into six groups of 10 teeth each. A mesiodistocclusal (MOD) cavity was prepared in the teeth to the level of the canal orifices so that the thickness of the buccal wall of the teeth measured 2 mm at the occlusal surface and 3 mm at the cemento-enamel junction. Preparations were restored using the following adhesive systems: Etch & Prime 3.0 (Degussa AG, Hanau, Germany), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Prompt L-Pop (ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), Panavia F (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan), Optibond Plus (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) and Admira Bond (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany); all preparations except those of the Panavia F and Admira Bond groups were further restored with resin composites. The Panavia F group was restored with amalgam and the Admira Bond group with Ormocer (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). The teeth were mounted in a Universal Testing Machine (Hounsfield, Surrey, UK), and the buccal walls were subjected to a slowly increasing compressive force until fracture occurred. The force of fracture of the walls of each tooth was recorded and the results in the various groups were compared. Statistical analysis of the data was accomplished using one-way ANOVA. Results: There was no significant difference in the fracture resistance of any of the test groups. Conclusions: In this laboratory study, the type of dentine bonding agents had no influence in the fracture resistance of teeth.