Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the mechanical properties of relined and non-relined fiberglass posts when cemented to root canal dentin using a conventional dualcure resin cement or a self-adhesive resin cement. Materials and Methods: Two types of resin cements were utilized: conventional and selfadhesive. Additionally, 2 cementation protocols were employed, involving relined and non-relined fiberglass posts. In total, 72 bovine incisors were cemented and subjected to push-out bond strength testing (n = 10) followed by failure mode analysis. The cross-sectional microhardness (n = 5) was assessed along the root canal, and interface analyses (n = 3) were conducted using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data from the push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness tests were analyzed via 3-way analysis of variance and the Bonferroni post-hoc test (α = 0.05). Results: For non-relined fiberglass posts, conventional resin cement exhibited higher pushout bond strength than self-adhesive cement. Relined fiberglass posts yielded comparable results between the resin cements. Type II failure was the most common failure mode for both resin cements, regardless of cementation protocol. The use of relined fiberglass posts improved the cross-sectional microhardness values for both cements. SEM images revealed voids and bubbles in the incisors with non-relined fiberglass posts. Conclusions Mechanical properties were impacted by the cementation protocol. Relined fiberglass posts presented the highest push-out bond strength and cross-sectional microhardness values, regardless of the resin cement used (conventional dual-cure or selfadhesive). Conversely, for non-relined fiberglass posts, the conventional dual-cure resin cement yielded superior results to the self-adhesive resin cement.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the bond strength of various fiberglass post cementation techniques using different resin-based composites. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The roots from a total of 100 bovine incisors were randomly assigned to 5 treatment groups: G1, post + Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SBMP) + RelyX ARC luting agent; G2, relined post (Filtek Z250) + SBMP + RelyX ARC; G3, individualized post (Filtek Z250) + SBMP; G4, individualized post (Filtek Bulk-Fill) + SBMP; G5, individualized post (Filtek Bulk-Fill Flow) + SBMP. The samples were subjected to the push-out (n = 10) and pull-out (n = 10) bond strength tests. Data from the push-out bond strength test were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with the Bonferroni post hoc test, and data from the pull-out bond strength test were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA. RESULTS: The data for push-out bond strength presented higher values for G2 and G5, mainly in the cervical and middle thirds, and the data from the apical third showed a lower mean push-out bond strength in all groups. No significant difference was noted for pull-out bond strength among all groups. The most frequent failure modes observed were adhesive failure between dentine and resin and mixed failure. CONCLUSIONS: Fiberglass post cementation using restorative and flowable bulk-fill composites with the individualization technique may be a promising alternative to existing methods of post cementation.
Adhesives ; Cementation ; Composite Resins ; Dental Cements ; Dentin ; In Vitro Techniques ; Incisor ; Root Canal Filling Materials ; Tooth Root