The effect of eugenol and non-eugenol endodontic sealers on the retention of three pre-fabricated posts cemented with a resin composite cement

Abstract

PLEASE NOTE: This work is protected by copyright. Downloading is restricted to the BU community: please click Download and log in with a valid BU account to access. If you are the author of this work and would like to make it publicly available, please contact [email protected], 98 leaves : col. ill.Thesis (MSD) --Boston University School of Dental Medicine, 1999 (Prosthodontics).Includes bibliographic references: leaves 88-98.The effects of eugenol-containing endodontic sealer on the retention of posts cemented with resin cement are not well understood. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the retentive strengths of ParaPost XH dowels (Whaledent International, Mahwah, NJ), LogiPost dowels (RTD, Grenoble, France), and CosmoPost dowels (Ivoclar, Schaan, Lichtenstein) cemented with Panavia 21 cement in extracted teeth that were treated endodontically by using two different sealers (eugenol and non-eugenol). From approximately one hundred fifty premolars, sixty teeth of similar size and shape were selected. Canals were instrumented to a size 5 Profile file, rinsed with 2.6% sodium hypochlorite and obturated with gutta percha, half with a eugenol sealer and half with a non-eugenoI sealer. The two groups were then divided in three subgroups each. Post spaces for all teeth were prepared and all posts were cemented with Panavia 21 resin composite cement following the manufacturer’s recommendations and held in place with a 453g weight for 15 minutes. The failure load was measured with a universal testing machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA) by applying a tensile force parallel to the long axis of the post, at a constant loading rate of 0.5cm/min. The results were statistically analyzed by using two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni multiple comparisons and Mann-Whitley U Test. There was no significant difference between the post and sealer factors (P=.967), or between the two endodontic sealers (P=.821). The mean maximal load for the LogiPost dowel was significantly greater than that for the CosmoPost dowel (P=.05). For both endodontic sealers, the mode of failure of the cement for the three post designs was significantly different. Retention of cement on the post was characterized by the following relationship: CosmoPost<LogiPost<ParaPost. There was no clear advantage to the use of a non-eugenol endodontic sealer when comparing retentive strengths of posts cemented with Panavia resin cement. Further research on the effect of the two studied sealers on other cements would be helpful; nevertheless it appears that the prognosis of a pulpless tooth restored with a prefabricated post will depend on factors other than ones studied in this investigation