Effects of adhesive composite core systems on adaptation of adhesive post and cores under load

Objectives t marginal and internal adaptation of five different adhesive composite core systems under load. s an premolars were endodontically prepared and obturated with an epoxy sealer and vertically condensed gutta-percha. Thereafter the entire clinical crown was removed. The teeth were randomly assigned to five different composite core groups, all using the same fiber reinforced radicular post (DT White). Gr. 1: Optibond solo plus/Nexus II/Prodigy; Gr. 2: Scotchbond 1/Rely X Arc/Filtek P60; Gr. 3: EBS multi/Compolute applicap/Pertac II; Gr. 4: ART Bond/Parapost cement/Synergy; Gr. 5: Superbond C&B catalyst S + polymer/Metafil CX. Polyvinyl-siloxane impressions of the external margins of the cores were readied before and after 1,200,000 cycles of mechanical loading with max. 100 N at 45° to the longitudinal axis of the tooth. After loading, 5 of the 6 samples of each group were cut longitudinally and the sixth sample was cut transversally to be able to take replicas for evaluation of internal adaptation after loading. s tages of external “continuous margins” ranged from 97.9 + −4.6 to 66.5 + −7.8 before and from 87.4 + −25.0 to 5.8 + −12.5 after loading. Internal adaptation ranged from 96.4 + −8.0 to 17.1 + −20.4 after loading for the core adaptation and from 89.8 + −12.2 to 65.9 + −14.3 for the dentin–luting composite interface and from 99.4 + −1.2 to 88.6 + −9.4 for the composite-post interface. sions singly, the best materials’ combination for the adhesive composite core was a self-etch light cured adhesive with a chemically cured luting agent.