Materials and Methods: In this in-vitro study, a total of 48 single-rooted permanent human teeth were decoronated, and the roots were treated endodontically. Following post space preparation, the sample was divided into four groups (n= 12 each) based on the types of post and cement. Two different types of post [GC everStick®POST (ES) and Parapost® Fiber LuxTM (PF)], and two different types of cement [G-CEMTM (G), and RelyXTM Unicem (R)] were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. All roots were sectioned at the coronal and middle thirds with a thickness of 3±0.1mm. The Push-out bond strength (PBS) test was performed using a universal testing machine at a cross-head speed of 0.5mm/ min. The bond strength values were recorded, and the data were analyzed using the SPSS program. Apart from descriptive statistics, three-way ANOVA was used for the interaction of the independent variables (post, cement, and root level). For differences between the groups, the Mann-Whitney U test was used. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant for all analyses.
Results: Push-out bond strength of samples at the middle level (11.38±10.31 MPa), with PF posts (11.18±9.98 MPa), and of those luted with RelyXTM Unicem cement (13.26±8.73 MPa) was higher than that of their counterparts. The PBS means of RelyXTM Unicem cement at both root levels were much higher than PBS means of G-CEMTM cement. Three-way ANOVA test revealed a significant effect for each variable with a higher effect of cement (Sum of Squares= 1310.690; P< 0.001). No significant difference (P= 0.153) was found between the coronal and middle parts and between ES and PF posts (P= 0.058). However, a highly significant difference (P< 0.001) was found between RelyXTM Unicem and G-CEMTM cements.
Conclusion: The type of cement had a significant effect on push-out bond strength with RelyXTM Unicem which had higher values than G-CEMTM. However, the type of post and root level had no significant effect on PBS, although Parapost® Fiber LuxTM and middle root level had higher values than their counterparts.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Root discs (2 mm thickness) were cut apical to CEJ and sectioned into quadrants. HIFU setup with bowl-shaped piezo ceramic transducer submerged in a water tank was used for exposure on each specimen for 15 s, 30 s or 60 s. The specimens of the control group were left without any HIFU exposure. HIFU was generated with a continuous sinusoidal wave of 120Vpp amplitude, 250 KHZ resonance-frequency and highest ultrasonic pressure of ∼10 bar at the focus. Specimens for SEM were viewed, and micro-topography characterization performed, using AFM and Ra parameter and surface area (SA) calculated by specialized SPM surface analysis software. For nano-indentation testing, experiments were carried out using AFM. Macrophage cell isolation and culturing was performed on cementum to receive the HIFU treatment at different time periods. Raman spectroscopy were scanned to create spectra perpendicular to the cementum substrate to analyze generation of standard spectra for Raman intensity ratio of hydroxyapatite normalized to the peaks ν1 960 cm-1. Data was expressed as means ± standard deviations and analyzed by one-way ANOVA in term of Ra, SA, H and Er. Different points for fluorescence intensity ratio were analyzed by Raman using Wilcoxon rank sum test.
RESULTS: HIFU exposure at 60 s removed the smear layer and most of cementum appeared smoothened. AFM characterisation, showed a slight decrease in the irregularity of the surface as exposure time increased. Intact macrophages can be identified in control and all experimental HIFU groups. The level of fluorescence for the control and HIFU 15 and 30 s were low as compared to HIFU 60 s.
CONCLUSION: If HIFU can be successfully implemented, it may be a possible alternative to current methods used in periodontal therapy to achieve smooth root surfaces.