journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

journal homepage: www.intl.elsevierhealth.com/journals/jden

Post retentive ability of a new resin composite with low

stress behaviour

Agostino Giovannetti a, Cecilia Goracci b,*, Alessandro Vichi b, Nicoletta Chieffi b,

Antonella Polimeni c, Marco Ferrari b
a
Department of Oral Sciences, Prosthodontics Unit, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, Rome 00100, Italy
b
Department of Dental Materials and Fixed Prosthodontics of the University of Siena, Tuscan School of Dental Medicine, University of Firenze
and Siena, Policlinico Le Scotte, viale Bracci, Siena 53100, Italy
c
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, Rome 00100, Italy

article info abstract

Article history: Objectives: To assess by means of push-out test the post retentive potential of a new
Received 2 October 2011 flowable resin composite with low polymerization stress.
Received in revised form Methods: SureFil1 SDRTM (Dentsply, S) was compared with the resin cement Calibra (Dents-
16 January 2012 ply, C). S and C were used in combination with the adhesive XP Bond (Dentsply, XPB). In C
Accepted 17 January 2012 group the Self-Cure Activator was mixed with XPB. The following types of fibre posts were
luted into 30 extracted premolars: Radix Fiber Post (Dentsply, R), DT Light Post (RTD, LP), ER
Dentin Post (Komet, ER), DT Light SL (VDW, SL), FibreKleer (Jeneric Pentron, F). Six posted
Keywords: roots per group were tested. Each root provided three to five 1 mm-thick slices. Measured
Post push-out strengths were differentiated by post space level and statistically analysed
Luting ( p < 0.05). The failure mode of each debonded specimen was assessed.
Low-stress Results: Cement type did not have a significant effect on post retention ( p = 0.54). Post type
Resin composite was a significant factor for push-out strength ( p < 0.001). LP exhibited significantly higher
Push-out retentive strength than SL and F; push-out strengths of ER and R were significantly higher
Failure mode than those of F. Post retention was significantly influenced by post space level ( p < 0.001).
Significantly higher push-out strengths were recorded at the coronal third than at the
middle and apical levels. The postcement interaction was significant ( p = 0.002). Posts luted
with S most often failed at the cementpost interface.
Conclusions: When the new flowable low-stress composite was used to lute fibre posts,
similar retentive strengths to those of a marketed cement from the same manufacturer were
achieved.
Clinical significance: SureFil1 SDRTM, a flowable composite originally proposed for bulk filling
of posterior restorations, exhibited post retentive strengths similar to those of a cement by
the same manufacturer. With a relatively high filler load, yet a low curing stress, SureFil1
SDRTM may be adequate for both post cementation and core build-up.
# 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author at: Department of Dental Materials and Fixed Prosthodontics, Policlinico Le Scotte, viale Bracci, Siena 53100, Italy.
Tel.: +39 0577 233131; fax: +39 0577 233117.
E-mail address: cecilia.goracci@gmail.com (C. Goracci).
0300-5712/$ see front matter # 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jdent.2012.01.007
 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328
1. Introduction
The use of fibre-reinforced composite (FRC) posts for the
restoration of endodontically treated teeth has been exten-
sively investigated and is supported by in vitro and in vivo
studies.15
The clinical effectiveness of such restorations has been
primarily related to the more biomimetic behaviour of FRC
posts.69 Their similarity in elastic properties with dentin leads
to a more uniform stress distribution within the posted root
and has a protective effect against root fracture.6,7,9,10,3,11
Conversely, post debonding has emerged as the most frequent
failure mode of fibre post retained restorations in the clinical
setting.6,7,3 Resin cements represent the materials of choice for
intraradicular luting of FRC posts owing to their superiority in
adhesive potential and mechanical properties in comparison
with water-based cements.1214 Nevertheless, the achieve-
ment of a strong and durable bond to intraradicular dentin is
challenged by several factors intervening during endodontic
treatment, dowel space preparation, post luting.15,16 Among
the conditions negatively affecting adhesion, the adverse
C-factor of the root plays a role.1719 For a thin layer of resin
cement curing within the boundaries of the dowel space, the
ratio of bonded to unbonded surfaces is indeed unfavourable
to stress relief.19,20 Contraction stress of the luting agent is also
influenced by filler load and elastic modulus.21 A recent
investigation revealed that when resin cements with 10 wt%
or 30 wt% filler load were used to lute fibre posts, higher post
push-out strengths and lower interfacial nanoleakage were
recorded, in comparison with cements filled by 50% or 70% in
weight.18 Such findings were related to the reduced curing
stress of the lowly filled luting agents. Nevertheless, the trend
toward simplification has recently brought to the market
materials that can be used for simultaneous post cementation
and core build-up. Such materials require relatively high filler
contents to achieve the mechanical properties needed for a
prosthetic abutment. However, the increased filler load yields
a more rigid material, developing a greater stress on curing.18
Recently a flowable resin composite with a 68 wt% filler
load, SureFil1 SDRTM (Dentsply, Milford, DE, USA) has been
introduced with the claims of slower elastic modulus
development and low stress behaviour polymerization,
without compromising on the depth of cure.22 The material
has been marketed as a resin composite for in bulk application
in direct resin composite restorations. However, the low stress
behaviour may represent an indication also for intraradicular
Table 1 Chemical composition and shape of the tested FRC posts.
Post Fibres
DT Light Post Quartz
RTD Grenoble, France
Radix Fiber Post Zirconium enriched glass
Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland
VDW, Munich, Germany Pre-conditioned quartz
Dentin Post X Glass
Komet, Lemgo, Germany
FibreKleer Serrated Post Glass
Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, CT, USA
323
fibre post luting. The present study was therefore aimed at
assessing the adhesive potential of SureFil1 SDRTM when used
for fibre post luting. On this purpose the retention of different
posts cemented with SureFil1 SDRTM was measured with the
push-out test. SureFil1 SDRTM was compared with a resin-
based luting agent marketed by the same manufacturer and
that was tested as control material. The tested null hypothesis
was that, regardless of the post type, SureFil1 SDRTM achieves
retentive strengths similar to those of the control material.
2. Materials and methods
Thirty single-rooted and single-canal premolars extracted for
orthodontic reasons were selected for the study once informed
consent was obtained from the donors. Teeth were hand-
scaled and stored in 1% chloramine T solution at 4 8C until use.
Cleaning and shaping was performed using a crown-down
preparation technique employing nickel-titanium rotary
instruments (size S1, S2 and F3; Protaper, Dentsply Maillefer,
Ballaigues, Switzerland) to ISO size 30, 0.09 taper. Irrigation
was performed with 5% sodium hypochlorite (NICLOR 5, Ogna,
Maggio, Italy) alternatively after every change of file size. Root
canals were dried using air stream and absorbent paper points
(Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany), and obturated with
gutta-percha and a resin based endodontic cement (AH-26,
Dentsply DeTrey), using the lateral condensation technique.
The coronal portion of filled roots was temporarily sealed with
IRM (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA), and the specimens
were stored at 37 8C and 100% humidity for 24 h. Roots were
then randomly divided into 5 equally sized groups (n = 6),
based on the type of fibre post they would receive. The
following post types were tested: Radix Fiber Post (Dentsply
Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), DT Light Post (RTD,
Grenoble, France), ER Dentin Post (Komet, Lemgo, Germany),
DT Light SL (VDW, Munich, Germany), and FibreKleer (Jeneric/
Pentron, Wallingford, CT, USA). Table 1 summarizes the
characteristics of the tested posts. After removing the
temporary coronal seal, a 7 mm deep post space was drilled
in each root canal using the drill specific to each post type. An
apical gutta-percha seal of at least 4 mm was maintained.
Within each group 2 subgroups of roots were randomly formed
based on the cement type to be used for post luting (Table 2):
subgroup (1) XP Bond/Self-Cure Activator (Dentsply De-Trey,
Konstanz, Germany)/Calibra (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE,
USA); subgroup (2) XP Bond/SureFil1 SDRTM (Dentsply De-
Trey, Konstanz, Germany). In all the specimens the root canal
Resin matrix Shape
Epoxy Double tapered
Epoxy Double tapered
Epoxy Double tapered
Epoxy Tapered with a retentive head
Bis-GMA, UDMA, HDDMA Serrated
324 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328
Table 2 Chemical composition of the tested luting agents.
Luting agent
XP Bond (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany)
Self Cure Activator (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany)
SureFil1 SDRTM (Dentsply De Trey, Konstanz, Germany)
Calibra (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, DE, USA)
walls were etched with 34% phosphoric acid (Caulk Tooth
Conditioner Gel, Milford, DE USA) for 15 s using an intraca-
nalar tip. The gel was rinsed with water using endodontic
needles. Excess water was removed from the post space using
absorbent paper points. In preparing the specimens of
subgroup 1, XP Bond was mixed with Self-Cure Activator.
The adhesive solution was applied on the post space walls
with a microbrush and left undisturbed for 20 s. Then, the
solvent was evaporated with the air stream from the airwater
syringe, and the adhesive was light-cured for 10 s with a
quartz-tungsten-halogen light (VIP, Bisco, Schaumburg, IL,
USA; minimum output 550 mW/cm2). In subgroup 1 base and
catalyst of Calibra were mixed and the mixed cement was
placed into the post space with a Lentulo spiral. The cement
was also applied onto the post surface and the post was seated
with a slight finger pressure. Light-curing was performed
for 20 s through the post by placing the light tip onto the post
coronal end. In subgroup 2, where SureFil1 SDRTM was used
as the luting agent, cement application, post seating, and
polymerization were performed in the same way as in
subgroup 1.
After 24 h, the posted roots were transversely sectioned
into 1 mm-thick serial slices using a low-speed saw (Isomet,
Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL, USA) under water-cooling. Each root
provided three to five 1 mm-thick slices. The push-out test
was performed using a universal testing machine (Controls
S.P.A., Milano, Italy), operating at a crosshead speed of
0.5 mm/min. On the loading machine each slice was posi-
tioned with the larger side of the post segment placed facing
the punch tip. Bond failure was manifested by the dislodgment
of the post fragment from the slice. Push-out strength data
were converted to MegaPascal (MPa) by dividing the load in
Newton by the bonded surface area (SL) in mm2. SL was
calculated as the lateral surface area of a truncated cone using
the formula: SL = p(R + r)[h2 + (R r)2]0.5, where p = 3.14, R is the
coronal post radius, r the apical post radius, and h the
thickness of the slice. The larger and the narrower diameters
of the post and the thickness of the slice were individually
measured using a digital calliper with 0.01 mm accuracy.
Chemical composition
Tert-Butanol; TEGMA; UDMA; PENTA; TCB resin; nanofiller;
Camphorquinone; DMABE; Butylated benzenediol; HEMA
UDMA, HEMA, catalyst, photoinitiators, stabilizers, acetone,
water
Barium-alumino-fluoro-borosilicate glass; Strontium
alumino-fluoro-silicate glass; Modified urethane
dimethacrylate resin; ethoxylated Bisphenol A
dimethacrylate (EBPADMA); Triethyleneglycol
dimethacrylate (TEGDMA); Camphorquinone (CQ)
Photoinitiator; Butylated hydroxyl toluene (BHT);
UV Stabilizer; Titanium dioxide; Iron oxide pigments
Filler 68 wt%
Calibra1 Esthetic Resin Cement Base: Dimethacrylate
Resins; Camphorquinone (CQ) Photoinitiator;
Stabilizers; Glass Fillers; Fumed silica; Titanium Dioxide;
Pigments
Calibra1 Esthetic Resin Cement Catalyst: Dimethacrylate
Resins; Catalyst; Stabilizers; Glass Fillers; Fumed Silica
Filler 65 wt%
Measured push-out strengths were differentiated by post
space level (coronal, middle, and apical), and statistically
analysed. The Three-Way Analysis of Variance was applied
with push-out strength as the dependent variable, luting
agent, post, and post space level as factors. The Tukey test was
applied for pairwise comparisons as needed. In all the
analyses the level of significance was set at p < 0.05. Statistical
calculations were handled by the software PASW Statistics 18
(SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA).
The failure mode of each debonded specimen after the
push-out test was assessed using a stereomicroscope (Nikon
SMZ645, Tokyo, Japan) at 40 magnification and classified as
follows: adhesive failure between dentin and cement, adhe-
sive failure between cement and post, cohesive failure within
the cement, cohesive failure within the post, mixed failure.
One slice representative of each failure mode was
processed for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation
in order to obtain SEM images of the failure patterns. The slices
were rinsed in 96% alcohol solution for 1 min and air dried.
Each slice was mounted on a metallic stub, sputter-coated
with gold (Polaron Range SC7620; Quorum Technology,
Newhaven, UK), and observed under a scanning electron
microscope (JSM 6060 LV; JEOL, Tokyo, Japan).
3. Results
Descriptive statistics of the post push-out strengths are
reported in Table 3. The Three-Way ANOVA indicated that
the type of luting agent did not have a significant effect on post
retention ( p = 0.54). Conversely, post type was a highly
significant factor for push-out strength ( p < 0.001). Particular-
ly, DT Light Posts exhibited significantly higher retentive
strength than DT Light SL and FibreKleer posts. Also, push-out
strengths of ER Dentin Posts and Radix Fiber posts were
significantly higher than those of FibreKleer posts. Also post
space level was a significant factor for push-out strength
( p < 0.001). Specifically, significantly higher push-out
strengths were recorded at the coronal third (12.1  4.1 MPa)
 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328 325

Table 3 Descriptive statistics of the post push-out strengths measured in MegaPascals. Different capital letters in the
Post column label statistically significant differences among the post types regardless of the luting agent and of the
dowel space level. Different small letters label statistically significant postcement interaction terms.
Post Luting agent Level N Mean Std. deviation
A ab
DT Light Post Calibra Coronal 4 11.6 1.8
Middle 5 7.3 2.2
Apical 2 10.4 6.4
Total 11 9.5 3.4
SureFil SDR a Coronal 4 15.8 1.3
Middle 6 13.3 4.6
Apical 2 13.9 4.1
Total 12 14.2 3.6

Radix Fiber Post AB Calibra ab Coronal 3 14.6 4.5

Middle 6 10.8 3.4
Apical 4 9.4 4
Total 13 11.3 4.2
Surefil SDR b Coronal 4 13.7 3.2
Middle 4 7.3 3.1
Apical 2 3.4 0.5
Total 10 9.1 5

ER Dentin Post AB Calibra ab Coronal 3 11.3 4

Middle 3 9 3.4
Apical 4 11.4 1.4
Total 10 10.6 2.8
Surefil SDR ab Coronal 4 14.1 5.6
Middle 3 6 1
Apical 4 7.3 3.2
Total 11 9.4 5.2

DT Light SL BC Calibra b Coronal 1 11 0

Middle 4 5 0.6
Apical 4 6.3 2.2
Total 9 6.2 2.2
Surefil SDR b Coronal 3 8.4 1.5
Middle 3 7.4 1.2
Apical 3 8.6 2.5
Total 9 8.1 1.6

FibreKleer C Calibra c Coronal 3 9.6 2.8

Middle 5 2.4 2.2
Apical 1 0.5 0
Total 9 4.6 4.3
Surefil SDR c Coronal 3 7.7 6.4
Middle 5 4.8 4.1
Apical 4 6.2 2.1
Total 12 5.9 4

than at the middle (7.6  4.4 MPa) and apical (8.1  4 MPa)
levels, that offered similar conditions for bonding. The post
cement interaction was significant ( p = 0.002). In Table 3
different small letters label statistically significant interaction
terms. The other between-factor interactions were not
statistically significant.
Table 4 illustrates the distribution of failure modes in
the experimental groups. When SureFil1 SDRTM was used as a
luting agent in combination with all the posts except
FibreKleer posts, failures occurred consistently at the
cementpost interface (Fig. 1A). When SureFil1 SDRTM was
used with FibreKleer posts, failure was most often at the
cementpost interface; however, also cohesive fractures
within the cement and mixed failures were reported. The
majority of failures at the cementdentin interface were
exhibited by specimens that had been restored with Calibra
and ER Dentin Post or Radix Fiber posts (Fig. 1B). In specimens
that had been restored with DT Light Posts failures were either
cohesive within cement or adhesive at the cementpost
interface. Post fractures were observed only in the DT Light
SL/Calibra group.
4. Discussion
Based on the studys results, the null hypothesis has to be
partly rejected, as post type and dowel space level were found
to have a significant influence on post retention. Conversely,
post push-out strength was not affected by the luting agent.
The latter finding supports the use of SureFil1 SDRTM for
intraradicular luting of FRC posts. SureFil1 SDRTM has been
marketed for bulk-filling of posterior direct resin composite
restorations. As available in only one shade, SureFil1 SDRTM is
to be overlayed with a universal composite resin, replacing
326 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328

Table 4 Distribution of failure modes in the experimental groups.

Post Luting agent ACD (%) ACP (%) CC (%) CP (%) M (%)
DT Light Post Calibra 0 0 100 0 0
Surefil SDR 0 100 0 0 0

Radix Fiber Post Calibra 100 0 0 0 0

Surefil SDR 0 100 0 0 0

ER Dentin Post Calibra 80 0 20 0 0

Surefil DR 0 100 0 0 0

DT Light SL Calibra 22.2 0 44.4 33.3 0

Surefil SDR 0 100 0 0 0

FibreKleer Calibra 15.4 30.8 53.8 0 0

Surefil SDR 0 50 16.7 0 3.3
Abbreviations: ACD = adhesive between cement and dentin; ACP = adhesive between cement and post; CC = cohesive within cement;
CP = cohesive within post; M = mixed.

missing enamel (SureFil1 SDRTM technical bulletin, Dentsply).
Beside the claim of a self-levelling adaptation, the new
flowable composite features a polymerization modulator
that, according to the manufacturer, provides the resin with a
stress decreasing ability. The polymerization modulator is a
photoactive group, chemically embedded in urethane-based
methacrylate resin, that would interact with camphorqui-
none. Such interaction would induce a slower modulus
development that allows for a reduction in shrinkage stress,
without affecting polymerization rate or degree of conversion
(SureFil1 SDRTM technical bulletin, Dentsply). In a recent
investigation the shrinkage behaviour and the micromecha-
nical properties of SureFil1 SDRTM were compared with those
of two regular flowable methacrylate-based composites and of
a silorane-based composite.23 SureFil1 SDRTM had the lowest
shrinkage stress, the longest pre-gel time, the lowest
shrinkage rate. With regard to the micromechanical proper-
ties, it emerged that SureFil1 SDRTM was less hard, more rigid,
and more plastic than the other tested flowables.23 Koltisko
et al.24 found for SureFil1 SDRTM a polymerization stress lower
than that of other universal and flowable composites,
although volumetric shrinkage (3.5 vol%) and flexular modu-
lus were similar to those of the tested flowables. Burgess
et al.22 stated that the chemistry of SureFil1 SDRTM is designed
to slow the polymerization rate, thereby shrinkage stress is
reduced even though polymerization shrinkage remains
comparable to that of other flowable composite resins
(3.1 vol%). Jin et al.25 reported that the new SDRTM resin
system in unfilled and in variously filled formulations yielded
lower curing stress than a conventional marketed resin.
Regarding the degree of conversion of SureFil1 SDRTM, the
only available information is that provided by the manufac-
turer (SureFil1 SDRTM technical bulletin, Dentsply). These
internal data indicate that at the bottom of a 5 mm-deep
specimen of SureFil1 SDRTM, light-irradiated for 20 s (light
intensity 500550 mW/cm2), a degree of conversion of about
50% was measured with Near-Infrared spectroscopy. More-
over, at a 6 mm depth, following 20 s irradiation by a light
curing unit with a power output of 650 mW/cm2, a degree
of conversion over 45% was measured for SureFil1 SDRTM
through Fourier Transform spectroscopy (SureFil1 SDRTM
technical bulletin, Dentsply). The potential of SureFil1
SDRTM for a slow stress development proposes this material
as hypothetically indicated also for FRC posts intraradicular
luting, where stress due to constrained polymerization
shrinkage remains a challenge. It was lately documented that
stronger post retention and better intraradicular sealing were
obtained with resin cements loaded by 30% and 50% in weight
than when the filler load of the luting agent was increased to
70%.18 The cited study provided evidence against the use of
one same material for post luting and core build-up, recently
proposed by manufacturers for the purpose of simplification.
As a matter of fact, the relatively high filler load and elastic
modulus of resin composites typically used for abutments
would negatively affect curing stress when the same materials
are employed for intraradicular post luting. In this regard it

Fig. 1 (A) Adhesive failure between post and luting agent in a specimen in which DT Light Post was used in combination
with SureFilW SDRTM (T50, bar = 500 mm). (B) Adhesive failure between cement and dentin in a Radix Fiber Post/Calibra
specimen (T50, bar = 500 mm).
 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328
should be noticed that SureFil1 SDRTM could provide the
favourable combination of relatively high filler load (68 wt%)
and low curing stress. The shrinkage stress measured by
SureFil1 SDRTM in the study by Ilie et al.23 was 1.1  .01 MPa.
Similarly low values of curing stress were measured in the
study by Ferrari et al.18 for a luting agent filled by 10 wt%
(1.19  .25 MPa), while the curing stress of the 70 wt%
filled cement was 2.36  .004 MPa. Nevertheless, it should
also be considered that SureFil1 SDRTM is a light-cured resin
composite, while it has been demonstrated that dual-cure
materials are the most appropriate for intraradicular luting, as
light transmission through the post is a critical issue.2631
Thereby, the idea to test the ability of the new flowable
material to intraradicularly retain several types of FRC posts,
with different degrees of translucency. The push-out mea-
surements demonstrated that, irrespective of the post type,
SureFil1 SDRTM yielded post retentive strengths similar to
those of Calibra, that was tested as control. It would also be of
interest to investigate whether the slower modulus develop-
ment and the consequent low shrinkage stress of SureFil1
SDRTM result in improved interfacial sealing within the
posted root.
When considering the influence of the dowel space level on
push-out strength, the coronal third was found to offer the
most favourable conditions for post retention. This observa-
tion is in line with the results of several previous investiga-
tions, and could be related to the increasingly difficult access,
to changes in dentin tubules orientation, as well as to light
attenuation, proceeding from the coronal to the apical level of
the dowel space.1,4,28,29
Concerning post types, DT Light Post, Radix Fiber, ER Dentin
Post, DT Light SL posts, although differing in chemical
composition and shape, all exhibit relatively high degrees of
translucency according to recent spectrophotometric mea-
surements,26 and were selected for the test in consideration of
the light-curing mode of SureFil1 SDRTM. Notwithstanding the
decline in cement retentive strength with light attenuation at
the middle and apical levels, it can be inferred from this
studys findings that the amount of light reaching SureFil1
SDRTM through the above mentioned translucent posts was
sufficient to induce proper cement polymerization and the
development of adequate post retentive strengths. Therefore,
there is evidence that SureFil1 SDRTM can be safely used for
intraradicular luting in combination with translucent posts.
Conversely, significantly lower push-out strengths were
measured in the present study by FibreKleer posts. These
dowels are made of glass fibres embedded in a methacrylate-
based resin matrix and have a cylindrical shape with coronal
serrations. In a previous study FibreKleer posts measured
significantly lower post pull-out strengths than the titanium
dowels ParaPost.32 Moreover, despite the manufacturers
claim of translucency, no light transmission was recorded
through FibreKleer serrated posts using a spectrophotome-
ter.26 The impairment in light transmission may reasonably
explain the low retentive strengths demonstrated by posts
luted with SureFil1 SDRTM, that is a light-cured material.
Similarly low push-out strengths were measured also when
Calibra was used to lute FibreKleer posts. Although Calibra is
a dual-cure luting agent, previous studies have pointed
out that relevant properties of the cement, such as degree
327
of conversion33,34 and bond strength to dentin,35 are enhanced
by exposure to light. Beside opacity, other properties of
FibreKleer posts may have played a role in determining the
relatively weak retention observed for these dowels in the
present study. Differently from the other posts on trial, that all
feature an epoxy resin matrix, in FibreKleer posts the matrix is
made of methacrylate resin. It can therefore be speculated
that the methacrylated-based matrix of FibreKleer is less
receptive to the bonding of Calibra and SureFil1 SDRTM. In a
previous investigation it was reported that the pull-out
strength of FibreKleer posts was significantly increased by
post surface sandblasting with aluminium oxide and Cojet
treatment.32 It could therefore be interesting to verify whether
such post surface treatments may also enhance the adhesion
of SureFil1 SDRTM and Calibra.
It is also worth mentioning that the use of post and cement
from the same manufacturer did not bring any particular
benefit to post retention, as Radix Fiber Posts measured push-
out strengths similar to those of the other translucent dowels
under test.
Also the handling characteristics of the materials deserve
some comments. In this regard it should be considered that
SureFil1 SDRTM would have the advantage of not requiring any
mixing step. Furthermore, having a relatively high filler load in
comparison with other flowable composites, its use could be
proposed also for building up the abutment. The performance
of the new material in this application should however be
preliminarily verified with in vitro tests of bond strength and
interfacial adaptation.
It should finally be mentioned that this study provided
information on early post retention. It is understood that
the evidence collected in the present investigation should
ideally be strengthened by the outcome of dynamic tests
simulating the clinical function and ultimately by in vivo
observations.
5. Conclusions
Within the limitation of this in vitro test, it can be concluded
that SureFil1 SDRTM, a new light-cured flowable resin
composite originally proposed for bulk filling of posterior
restorations, when used to lute fibre posts achieved retentive
strengths similar to those of Calibra, a dual-cure luting agent
marketed by the same manufacturer. As a one-component
material, SureFil1 SDRTM does not require any mixing step,
thus further simplifying the handling. However, being a light-
cured resin composite, for a safe use of SureFil1 SDRTM as a
luting agent, fibre posts of knowingly adequate translucency
should be preferred.
references
1. Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems:
a literature review. Australian Dental Journal 2011;56(Suppl.
1):7783.
2. Bitter K, Kielbassa AM. Post-endodontic restorations with
adhesively luted fiber-reinforced composite post systems: a
review. American Journal of Dentistry 2007;20:35360.
328 journal of dentistry 40 (2012) 322328
3. Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Garcia-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Clinical
studies of fiber posts: a literature review. International Journal
of Prosthodontics 2008;21:32836.
4. Goracci C, Grandini S, Bossu` M, Bertelli E, Ferrari M.
Laboratory assessment of the retentive potential of
adhesive posts: a review. Journal of Dentistry 2007;35:82735.
5. Naumann M, Blankenstein F, Dietrich T. Survival of glass
fibre reinforced composite post restorations after 2 years-
an observational clinical study. Journal of Dentistry
2005;33:30512.
6. Dietschi D, Duc O, Krejci I, Sadan A. Biomechanical
considerations for the restoration of endodontically treated
teeth: a systematic review of the literature. Part II
(Evaluation of fatigue behavior, interfaces, and in vivo
studies). Quintessence International 2008;39:11729.
7. Cagidiaco MC, Goracci C, Garcia-Godoy F, Ferrari M. Clinical
trials of fiber posts: a literature review. In: Ferrari M, Breschi
L, Grandini S, editors. Fiber posts and endodontically treated
teeth: a compendium of scientific and clinical perspectives.
Wendywood: Modern Dentistry Media; 2008. p. 14963.
8. Ferrari M. Introduction. In: Ferrari M, Breschi L, Grandini S,
editors. Fiber posts and endodontically treated teeth: a
compendium of scientific and clinical perspectives.. Wendywood:
Modern Dentistry Media; 2008. p. 913.
9. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, Heitmann T. Stiffness, elastic
limit, and strength of newer types of endodontic posts.
Journal of Dentistry 1999;27:2758.
10. Baba NZ, Golden G, Goodacre CJ. Nonmetallic prefabricate
dowels: a review of compositions, properties, laboratory, and
clinical test results. Journal of Prosthodontics 2009;18:52736.
11. Hatta M, Shinya A, Vallittu OK, Shinya A, Lassila LV. High
volume individual fibre post versus low volume fibre post:
the fracture load of the restored tooth. Journal of Dentistry
2011;39:6571.
12. Monticelli F, Ferrari M, Toledano M. Cement system and
surface treatment selection for fiber post luting. Medicina
Oral Patologia Oral y Cirurgia Bucal 2008;13:E21421.
13. Radovic I, Monticelli F, Goracci C, Vulicevic ZR, Ferrari M.
Self-adhesive resin cements: a literature review. Journal of
Adhesive Dentistry 2008;10:2518.
14. Bagheri R, Mese A, Burrow MF, Tyas MJ. Comparison of the
effect of storage media on shear punch strength of resin
luting cements. Journal of Dentistry 2010;38:8207.
15. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ferrari M. Adhesion to intra-radicular
dentin. In: Ferrari M, Breschi L, Grandini S, editors. Fiber
posts and endodontically treated teeth: a compendium of scientific
and clinical perspectives. Wendywood: Modern Dentistry
Media; 2008. p. 1537.
16. Lindblad RM, Lassila LV, Salo V, Vallittu PK, Tjaderhane L.
Effect of chlorhexidine on initial adhesion of fiber-reinforced
post to root canal. Journal of Dentistry 2010;38:796801.
17. Tay FR, Loushine RJ, Lambrechts P, Weller RN, Pashley DH.
Geometric factors affecting dentin bonding in root canals: a
theoretical modeling approach. Journal of Endodontics
2005;31:5849.
18. Ferrari M, Carvalho CA, Goracci C, Antoniolli F, Mazzoni A,
Mazzotti G, et al. Influence of luting material filler content
on post cementation. Journal of Dental Research 2009;88:9516.
19. Aksornmuang J, Nakajima M, Senawongse P, Tagami J.
Effects of C-factor and resin volume on the bonding to root
canal with and without fibre post insertion. Journal of
Dentistry 2011;39:4229.
20. Davidson CL, Feilzer AJ. Polymerization shrinkage and
polymerization shrinkage stress in polymer-based
restoratives. Journal of Dentistry 1997;25:43540.
21. Van Ende A, De Munck J, Mine A, Lambrechts P, Van
Meerbeek B. Does a low-shrinking composite induce less
stress at the adhesive interface? Dental Materials
2010;26:21522.
22. Burgess J, Cakir D. Comparative properties of low-shrinkage
composite resins. Compendium of Continuing Education in
Dentistry 2010;31:105. (Spec Iss 2).
23. Ilie N, Hickel R. Investigation on a methacrylate-based
flowable composite based on the SDRTM technology. Dental
Materials 2011;27:34855.
24. Koltisko B, Dai Q, Jin X, Bertrand S. The polymerization
stress of flowable composites. Journal of Dental Research
2010;89:321.
25. Jin X, Bertrand S, Hammesfahr PD. New radically
polymerizable resins with remarkably low curing stress.
Journal of Dental Research 2009;88:1651.
26. Goracci C, Corciolani G, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Light
transmission ability of marketed fiber posts. Journal of Dental
Research 2008;87:11228.
27. Ho YC, Lai YL, Chou IC, Yang SF, Lee SY. Effects of light
attenuation by fibre posts on polymerization of a dual-cured
resin cement and microleakage of post-restored teeth.
Journal of Dentistry 2011;39:30915.
28. Radovic I, Corciolani G, Magni E, Krstanovic G, Pavlovic V,
Vulicevic ZR, et al. Light transmission through fiber post: the
effect on adhesion, elastic modulus and hardness of dual-
cure resin cement. Dental Materials 2009;25:83744.
29. Navarra CO, Goracci C, Breschi L, Vichi A, Corciolani G,
Cadenaro M, Ferrari M. Influence of post type on degree of
conversion of a resin-based luting agent. American Journal of
Dentistry, 2012, in press.
30. Giachetti L, Scaminaci Russo D, Bertini F, Giuliani V.
Translucent fiber post cementation using a light-curing
adhesive/composite system: SEM analysis and pull-out test.
Journal of Dentistry 2004;32:62934.
31. Teixeira CS, Silva-Sousa YC, Sousa-Neto MD. Effects of light
exposure time on composite resin hardness after root
reinforcement using translucent fibre post. Journal of
Dentistry 2008;36:5208.
32. Kelsey WP, Latta MA, Kelsey MR. A comparison of the
retention of three endodontic dowel systems following
different surface treatments. Journal of Prosthodontics
2008;17:26973.
33. Arrais CA, Giannini M, Rueggeberg FA. Effect of sodium
sulfinate salts on the polymerization characteristics of dual-
cured resin cement systems exposed to attenuated light-
activation. Journal of Dentistry 2009;37:21927.
34. Arrais CA, Rueggeberg FA, Waller JL, de Goes MF, Giannini
M. Effect of curing mode on the polymerization
characteristics of dual-cured resin cement systems. Journal
of Dentistry 2008;36:41826.
35. Latta MA, Kelsey 3rd WP, Kelsey 5th WP. Effect of
polymerization mode of adhesive and cement on shear
bond strength to dentin. American Journal of Dentistry
2006;19:96100.