G Model

JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6

journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Prosthodontic Research

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jpor

Original article

Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite:

Effect on the adhesion to a composite resin
Ana C. Cadore-Rodriguesa , Luís F. Guilardia , Vinicius F. Wandscherb ,
Gabriel K.R. Pereirac , Luiz F. Valandroa,* , Marília P. Rippea
a
Post-Graduate Program in Oral Science, Division of Prosthetic Dentistry, Federal University of Santa Maria, Marechal Floriano Peixoto Street 1184, 97015-372
Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil
b
Faculty of Odontology, Prosthodontics Unit, Franciscan University, Silva Jardim Street 1175, 97010-491 Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil
c
Post-Graduate Program in Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Meridional Faculty – IMED, Senador Pinheiro Street 304, 99070-220 Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do
Sul State, Brazil

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Article history: Purpose: To compare the effect of different surface treatments (pre-treatments and bonding agents) on
Received 29 January 2019 the bond strength between glass-fiber post and composite resin, and the topographic alterations of the
Received in revised form 7 July 2019 treated post surface.
Accepted 3 September 2019
Methods: Thirty-six glass-fiber blocks (12 mm  10 mm  8 mm) were specifically manufactured for this
Available online xxx
study and randomly assigned into 12 groups considering two factors: ‘pre-treatments’ (–cleaning with
70% alcohol; air-abrasion with silica-coated aluminum oxide particles; 35% hydrogen peroxide) and type
Keywords:
of ‘bonding agent’ (no bonding agent; application of Monobond Plus; RelyX Ceramic Primer; Single Bond
Airborne-particle abrasion
Chemical interaction
Universal). After that, 6 cylindrical templates ( 1mm high  1 mm Ø) were fixed on each block, filled with
Microshear bond test composite resin (n = 18) and light-cured. Specimens were stored under 37  C for 24 h and microshear tests
Pre-fabricated intraradicular posts (wire loop Ø = 0.2 mm) were performed. Topographic, roughness and failure analyses were also
Surface pre-treatment performed.
Results: Different surface pre-treatments led to different topographic and roughness alterations; a higher
surface alteration was noted after silica particles air-abrasion, while a slight surface alteration in the
hydrogen peroxide group and a smooth pattern were observed in the cleaning group. The factors ‘pre-
treatments’ (p < 0.05), ‘bonding agent’ (p < 0.05) and their interaction (p < 0.05) influenced the bond
strength. Silica coating, apart from bonding agent application, or Single Bond Universal application
without pre-treatment promoted the highest bond values. The main failure type was adhesive at the
resin-post interface.
Conclusions: In terms of pre-treatments, silica coating promotes the best bonding performance, but pre-
treatments can be dispensable when applying Single Bond Universal.
© 2019 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Glass-fiber posts are widely used in restorative rehabilitation of
endodontically treated teeth that present extensive loss of coronal
structure [1] due to the similar Young modulus to tooth dentin. It
provides a more homogeneous stress distribution along the
* Corresponding author at: Luiz Felipe Valandro, D.D.S., M.Sci.D., Ph.D., Associate
Professor, Federal University of Santa Maria, Faculty of Odontology, Graduate
Program in Oral Science, Prosthodontics Unit, 1000 Roraima Av. T Street, Building
26F, Room, 2386, 97105-900, Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sul State, Brazil.
E-mail addresses: anacadorerodrigues@gmail.com (A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues),
luisfguilardi@hotmail.com (L.F. Guilardi), viniwan@hotmail.com (V.F. Wandscher),
gabrielkrpereira@hotmail.com (G.K.R. Pereira), valandrolf@gmail.com
(L.F. Valandro), mariliarippe@mail.ufsm.br (M.P. Rippe).
root canal and also present increased aesthetic properties in
comparison to the metal-based intraradicular posts [2].
A major concern that is raised with the increased use of
prefabricated glass-fiber post is to achieve proper adhesion to the
intraradicular dentin, since its most frequent failure mode is
debonding [2]. Several surface treatments have been studied to
improve the bond between resin cements and glass-fiber posts [3].
These treatments can be performed through a physical mechanism
(e.g., air-abrasion, acid etching) by increasing the surface
roughness of the glass-fiber posts and by removing a superficial
layer of resin matrix, exposing the silica present in the reinforce-
ment fibers; or a chemical mechanism, by using primers which
chemically interact with the post surface; or an association of both
mechanisms [3].

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
1883-1958/ © 2019 Japan Prosthodontic Society. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
G Model
JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6
2 A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues et al. / journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx
Table 1. List of materials used: commercial names, manufacturers, batch numbers and composition based on the manufacturer’s information.
Material (commercial name) Manufacturer
Glass-fiber block FGM Produtos
Odontologicos
Hydrogen peroxide (Whiteness HP FGM Produtos
Maxx) Odontologicos
CojetTM System 3M Espe AG
Monobond Plus Ivoclar Vivadent Inc.
Relyx Ceramic Primer 3M Espe AG
Single Bond Universal 3M Espe AG
Composite Resin FGM Produtos
(Opallis, shade A2) Odontologicos
The association of surface treatment and silanization (silane
coupling agent application) is able to improve the retention into
root canals compared to silanization alone [3]. The use of air-
abrasion (silica-coated aluminum oxide particles) generates
micro-retentions, which increase the roughness and the total
surface area, and leads to a localized increase of temperature
resulting in silica fusion and its encrustation on the surface from
the collision of particles to the substrate, thus combining chemical
and micromechanical retention [4–6]. This protocol associated
with silanization can increase the bond strength between cement
and dentin [4–6]. Moreover, air-abrasion with aluminum oxide
particles modified by silica result in higher bond strength between
quartz fiber posts and resin cement compared to phosphoric acid
(32%) and hydrofluoric acid (10%) [7].
Hydrogen peroxide application is another alternative treatment
that seems to increase the bond strength between the post and the
composite resin core [8]. It removes a superficial layer of epoxy
resin creating micromechanical retention for the composite resin
and leaves the glass-fibers free for chemical bonding to silane
agents, without damaging the post surface [2,4]. In addition,
different concentrations of hydrogen peroxide (24% and 50%) are
able to partially dissolve the epoxy resin and expose the glass-
fibers [9].
Some studies which only considered chemical interactions of
primers to the fiber post surface have also presented interesting
possibilities. The use of different primers (use of only silane or
its association with different adhesive systems) on the bond
strength to fiber posts noticed no statistically significant
difference among groups [10]. In contrast, Goracci et al. showed
that the use of silanization increases the bond strength between
two systems of pre-fabricated posts and two flowable composite
resins [11]. Silane coupling agents increase the surface energy of
the post resulting in better wetting for bonding agents, and
creates a siloxane linkage between the organic substrate of resin
and the inorganic phase of the post, improving the bond
strength [12].
As aforementioned, achieving a strong adhesion between fiber
posts and composite resin is mandatory for the predictability of
such restorative assembly. The existence of many in vitro studies
using different systems and approaches aiming to clarify this topic
have been clearly observed in literature [3].
In this context, the aim of this study was to compare the
effect of different surface treatments (pre-treatments and
bonding agents) on the bond strength of a composite resin to
glass-fiber post, and describe the surface topography alterations
created by the different pre-treatments. The study assumed the
null hypothesis that the use of different surface pre-treatments
and chemical bonding agents would not influence the bond
Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
Lot number Composition
– Glass fiber, epoxy resin, inorganic filler, silane, polymerization promoters
170815 After mixture of the phases: hydrogen peroxide at 30%–35%, thickeners, dye
mixture,
glycol, inorganic load and deionized water
407592 Aluminum trioxide (30 mm), amorphous silica
U25466 Alcohol solution of silane methacrylate, phosphoric acid methacrylate and sulphide
methacrylate
N561569 Pre-hydrolyzed, single-phase silane, ethanol (70%–80%), water (20%–30%)
1316100849 MDP phosphate monomer, dimethacrylate resins, HEMA, methacrylat emodified
polyalkenoic acid copolymer, filler, ethanol, water, initiators, silane
80172310008 Bis (GMA), Bis (EMA), UDMA, TEGDMA, barium–aluminum, silanized silicate and
nanoparticles of silicon dioxide, camphoroquinone, accelerators, stabilizers and
pigments
strength of composite resin to the glass-fiber reinforced
composite blocks.
2. Materials and methods
The materials used in this study and their respective composi-
tion are shown in Table 1.
2.1. Glass-fiber block preparation
Glass-fiber reinforced composite (FRC) blocks were specially
designed and manufactured by FGM (FGM Dental, Joinville,
Brazil) for this study using the same manufacturing methodol-
ogy (preparing, mixing components and machining) of their
commercially available glass-fiber posts (Whitepost DC, FGM
Dental). Thus, these blocks presented the same composition,
fiber content, and fiber direction of the commercial glass-fiber
posts, but had a different shape, i.e. a rectangular shape
(12 mm  10 mm  8 mm) which made the microshear bond test
possible (Fig. 1).
The blocks were embedded in plastic rings with self-curing
acrylic resin (Vipi Produtos Odontologicos, Pirassununga,
São Paulo, Brazil), keeping the bond surface free from
contamination and perpendicular to the vertical axis. Then,
the blocks were randomly assigned into 12 groups (n = 18)
considering two factors: pre-treatment and type of bonding
agent (Table 2). The experimental unit was the ‘composite
resin cylinder’.
2.2. Surface treatments of the glass-fiber reinforced composite
Prior to surface treatments, the specimens were cleaned under
friction with gauze soaked in 70% alcohol.
2.2.1. Pre-treatments
2.2.1.1. Cleaning (baseline group). Cleaning under friction with
gauze soaked in 70% alcohol, followed by gentle air-drying.
2.2.1.2. Hydrogen peroxide. The 35% hydrogen peroxide
(Whiteness HP Maxx, FGM) was applied on the FRC surface with
microbrush for 1 min, followed by washing and rinsing with
distilled water and gentle air-drying.
2.2.1.3. Silica coating. The air-abrasion with 30 mm silica-coated
aluminum oxide particles (CojetTM System, 3M Espe AG, Seefeld,
Bavaria, Germany) was executed for 10 sec at a distance of 10 mm
from the device tip, with oscillatory movements and at a pressure
G Model
JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6

A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues et al. / journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx 3

Figure 1. Digital photography of the block and the fiber-post commercially available (A); and stereomicroscopies (Stereo Discovery V20; Carl Zeiss AG) of the specially
designed block (B, C and D) and of the glass-fiber post commercially available (Whitepost DC3, FGM Dental) (E, F and G) in 35, 60 and 150 of magnification.

Table 2. Experimental groups.

Groups Mechanical treatment Chemical treatment

1 Cleaning – friction with gauze soaked in 70% alcohol No bonding agent
2 followed by gentle air-drying. Monobond Plus – applied actively + 60 sec for solvent evaporation and gentle air-dry
3 Relyx Ceramic Primer – applied actively for 5 sec + allowed to dry for 5 sec
4 Single Bond Universal – applied actively for 20 sec + gentle air-dry for 5 sec
5 Hydrogen peroxide – 35% concentration applied with No bonding agent
6 microbrush for 1 min + wash and rinse + gentle air-drying. Monobond Plus – applied actively + 60 sec for solvent evaporation and gentle air-dry
7 Relyx Ceramic Primer – applied actively for 5 sec + allowed to dry for 5 sec
8 Single Bond Universal – applied actively for 20 sec + gentle air-dry for 5 sec
9 Silica coating - air-abrasion with 30 mm silica-coated aluminum No bonding agent
10 oxide particles, 10 mm distance, for 10 sec at 2.8 bar Monobond Plus – applied actively + 60 sec for solvent evaporation and gentle air-dry
11 Relyx Ceramic Primer – applied actively for 5 sec + allowed to dry for 5 sec
12 Single Bond Universal – applied actively for 20 sec + gentle air-dry for 5 sec

of 2.8 bar. All the specimens were then gentle air-dried to remove
any debris.
2.2.2. Bonding agents
2.2.2.1. No bonding agent. No bonding agent was applied.
2.2.2.2. Monobond Plus. Monobond Plus was actively applied with
a microbrush and kept untouched for 60 sec (solvent evaporation).
Then, it was gentle air-dried to remove the excess.
2.2.2.3. RelyX Ceramic Primer. RelyX Ceramic Primer was applied
actively with microbrush and kept untouched for 5 sec (solvent
evaporation). It was then gentle air-dried for 5 sec.
2.2.2.4. Single Bond Universal (SBU). Single Bond Universal was
actively applied with microbrush for 20 sec, gentle air-dried for
5 sec for excess removal, and light-cured for 20 sec.
2.3. Performing the composite resin cylinders
The methodology described by Tedesco et al. was used to
increase manufacturing reproducibility and to standardize the
samples’ dimensions [13]. To do so, starch tubes (Renata,
Pastificio Selmi; Londrina, PR, Brazil) with 1 mm high and having
0.96 mm internal diameter served as cylindrical matrices for
manufacturing the microshear samples. The tubes were posi-
tioned on the FRC block surface and fixed with wax (Wax Pink
7 – Lysanda, São Paulo, Brazil). The composite resin (Lot:
80172310008, shade A2, Opallis, FGM) was inserted into the
tubes with a WHO probe (Golgran, São Caetano do Sul, São Paulo,
Brasil) and light-cured (Radii-cal LED curing light, SDI, Bayswater,
Australia) for 20 sec.
2.4. Microshear test
Prior to testing, all specimens were stored in distilled water in a
steam chamber (Laboratory thermo incubator – FANEM, São Paulo,
Brazil) for 24 h at 37  C. Next, the starch tubes were carefully
removed under a gentle water stream [13] and the microshear test
was performed.
It is important to highlight that the researcher who executed
these tests was blinded to the group they were testing. The samples
were placed in a jig attached to a universal testing machine (EMIC
DL-2000, EMIC, São José dos Pinhais, Brazil). A wire loop (0.20 mm
in diameter) was positioned at the interface between the
composite resin and the glass-fiber block, and an increasing load
was applied at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min until failure
occurred [13]. Care was taken to keep the composite cylinder in
line with the center of the load cell and to keep the wire loop
parallel to the load cell’s movement direction and to the bonding
interface.
2.5. Failure analysis
All fractured specimens were analyzed under a stereomicro-
scope (Stereo Discovery V20; Carl Zeiss AG, Oberkochen, Baden-
Württemberg, Germany) at 40 magnification to categorize the
failure type in adhesive (failure at the resin-FRC interface) or
cohesive failure (failure of the restoration or the glass-fiber block).

Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
G Model
JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6

4 A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues et al. / journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx

Table 3. Bond strength data (mean and standard deviation in MPa) obtained on the microshear test and roughness analysis.

Type of bonding agent

FRC pre-treatment No bonding agent Monobond plus Relyx ceramic primer Single bond universal Overall values Roughness

Cleaning 4.4 (1.8) Bb 6.5 (1.4) Bb 5.8 (2.3) Bb 11.1 (3.6) Aa 7.0 B Before treatment After treatment
Hydrogen Peroxide 5.1 (1.3) Bb 5.6 (2.2) Bb 6.9 (2.2) Bab 8.2 (2.3) Ba 6.5 B 3.0 3.1
Silica coating 9.0 (2.5) Aa 9.6 (3.1) Aa 10.6 (3.1) Aa 8.5 (1.5) Ba 9.5 A 3.4 4.3
Overall values 6.2 c 7.3 bc 7.8 b 9.3 a

*Different uppercase letters, considering each column, indicate statistical differences for pre-treatments under the same bonding agent.
**Different lowercase letters, considering each line, indicate statistical difference for bonding agents, keeping the same pre-treatment.

Figure 2. Representative images of the failure analysis performed in stereomicroscope with 40 magnification. Adhesive failure: exposed glass-fibers (GF) with absence of
resin composite debris; B- Cohesive failure: mainly composite resin (CR) debris.

2.6. Topographic analysis
A descriptive analysis on a field emission scanning electron
microscope (FE-SEM, Inspect F50, FEI, North America Nano Port,
Hillsboro, Oregon, USA) was performed to determine the
topographical pattern after each surface pre-treatment. To do so,
the specimens (n = 2 per condition) were coated with a gold-
palladium alloy and then the images were obtained at 1000 and
5000 of magnification.
2.7. Roughness analysis
The surface roughness of one specimen from each group was
measured using a roughness tester (Mitutoyo SJ-410, Mitutoyo
Corporation, Takatsu-ku, Kawasaki, Kanagawa, Japan). Three
measures were performed in the direction of the post fibers and
three in the opposite direction of the post fibers. The analyzes were
performed before and after the surface pre-treatment.
bonding agents, the SBU generated the highest bond strength
values when the pre-treatment was ‘Cleaning’, and it was similar to
the other bonding agents when pre-treated by silica coating
(Table 3).
All the failures were adhesive between the glass-fiber block and
composite resin interface. Only one specimen from the ‘silica-
coating + SBU’ condition showed cohesive failure in the composite
resin (Fig. 2B).
Topographic analysis of the FRC surface after pre-treatments
showed a smooth pattern in the cleaning group, with unaltered
glass-fibers and resin matrix; while for the hydrogen peroxide
group, a slight surface alteration can be seen, without great impact
on resin matrix degradation and little impact on roughness
(Table 3); an intense surface alteration can be noted after silica
particle air-abrasion, with irregularities owing to the impact of
particles and deposition of silica particles onto the FRC surface,
which probably generated more roughness and more defects for
better micromechanical interlocking (Fig. 3).

2.8. Statistical analysis 4. Discussion

After assuring a parametric (tested by Shapiro Wilk normality
test) and homogenous (tested by Levene homoscedasticity test)
distribution of measurements, the data was submitted to two-way
ANOVA and Tukey’s post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).
3. Results
Two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s tests showed that both pre-
treatment (p < 0.05) and bonding agent (p < 0.05) factors affected
the bond strength values. Regarding the pre-treatments, the silica
coating led to the highest bond strength values for all bonding
agents, except for the SBU bonding agent. In comparing the
Our data support that the silica coating promoted the highest
bond strength among the evaluated pre-treatments when execut-
ed solely or in combination with the Monobond Plus and RelyX
Ceramic Primer chemical primers. The Single Bond Universal
without surface pre-treatment promoted the highest bond
strength among the evaluated bonding agents. Therefore, the null
hypothesis that the surface pre-treatments and the use of chemical
bonding agents would not influence the bond strength of
composite resin to glass-fiber reinforced composite blocks was
rejected.
The air-abrasion with alumina particles coated by silica
(CojetTM System) acts through the impact of the particles

Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
G Model
JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6
A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues et al. / journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx
Figure 3. Representative photomicrographs of surface treatments of FRC material at 1000 and 5000 of magnification. An intense surface alteration can be noted after silica
particles air-abrasion due to the impact of particles and deposition of silica particles onto FRC surface (C,F). While after hydrogen peroxide some glass-fibers were exposed (B,
E) and for the cleaning group the glass-fibers and resin matrix remained unaltered (A,D).
against a substrate. This collision generates irregularities and
creates micro-retentions, increasing the surface roughness and
improving the micromechanical interlocking of the composites
[4,14]. Additionally, the impact energy created during air-abrasion
leads to an increase in temperature that results in the silica
melting and its attachment to the substrate surface. Furthermore,
when this condition is followed by the silane application it
enhances the surface chemical reactivity, thereby promoting
siloxane bonds between the deposited silica and the composite
resin or resin cement applied for manufacturing/luting of the
restoration [14]. According to Zicari et al., air-abrasion with silica
coated particles modified the surface structure of the glass-fiber
post which increased its roughness and significantly improved its
bond strength to the resin cement [15]; this is in accordance with
the findings by Schmage et al. [16], and also corroborates our
findings.
In relation to the hydrogen peroxide pre-treatment, Valdivia
et al. found higher values for bond strength between post and resin
cement when using 24% hydrogen peroxide for 1 min compared to
10% hydrofluoric acid, 37% phosphoric acid and 70% alcohol also for
1 min [17]. In contrast, we found similar bond strength results in
our study between the group pre-treated with 35% hydrogen
peroxide for 1 min and the group without pre-treatment only
cleaned with 70% alcohol. The glass-fibers are covered with highly
cross-linked, low-reactive epoxy resin, and its exposure allows
more effective formation of siloxane bonds between the silane
agent and the glass-fibers [4]. The results for 35% hydrogen
peroxide can be explained since it only slightly altered the block
surface (Fig. 3), limiting both the exposure of glass-fibers and the
micromechanical interlocking which are responsible for enhancing
the bond strength to the composite resin.
Regarding the evaluated bonding agents, Single Bond Universal
promoted the highest bond strength when used alone (without
surface pre-treatment). The bond strength values decreased when
the pre-treatments (Hydrogen Peroxide and Silica Coating) were
combined with SBU. These results may be explained by the
composition of SBU, as it contains MDP (10-methacryloyloxydecyl
dihydrogen phosphate) [15]. The MDP presents a functional
phosphoric acid group in its composition, which may be
considered a major bond promoter, as it interacts with the
hydroxyapatite; it also contains a photo-reactive methacrylate
group which interacts with the resin matrix, and a 10 carbon chain
(decyl group) which acts in guaranteeing space to separate the
previously mentioned active groups [15].
Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
5
Previous existing literature has already elucidated that the
presence of MDP monomers in the bond systems enhance
adhesion to dentin and metal oxides, such as zirconia and alumina
[18]. However, the mechanism of chemical interaction between
MDP and pre-fabricated glass-fiber posts is still unclear, which
emphasizes the need for well-designed studies with this objective.
Nevertheless, it is theorized that the action mechanism would be
similar to the one observed on metal oxides, which could justify
the improvement in adhesion when this system is solely employed.
The MPS (methacryloxypropyltrimethoxysilane) silane does
not interact well with the epoxy matrix compromising the bond
strength between the epoxy resin phase of the fiber post and the
methacrylate-based composite resin [4]. The silane coupling is a
technique-sensitive material, and factors such as pH, solvent
content and molecule size can influence its efficacy. Maybe these
factors compromised the performance of the SBU system [19]
when combined with other pre-treatments or chemical treatments
due to the incompatibility of systems as they would use different
mechanisms for chemical interactions, and which could be the
reason for the worse performance when this system (SBU) was
used combined.
The silane primers (RelyX Ceramic Primer and Monobond Plus)
present bifunctional molecules which react with the glass-fiber
post surface (inorganic side) and with the resin matrix (organic
side), creating a chemical bond [20]. The literature on the use of
silane agents to improve the bond strength between glass-fiber
posts and composite resins is still controversial. According to
Oliveira et al., silane application results in increased bond strength
to pre-fabricated posts when luting with conventional resin
cements, while its effect for self-adhesive cements seems non-
existent or harmful (i.e. no impact on adhesion or even a
decrease in the bond strength) [18]. On the other hand, some
studies have noticed an undeniable increase in the bond strength
between glass-fiber post and composite resin after silane
application [21,22].
Along these lines, Rosatto et al. stated that the effect of silane
agents is influenced by the wettability of the substrate [22], which
could be the reason why both silane systems evaluated in the
present study (RelyX Ceramic Primer and Monobond Plus) present
statistically similar values, regardless of the pre-treatment used.
The difference between the silane systems used in this study is that
the Monobond Plus presents additional phosphoric and sulfite
methacrylates in its composition; however, the silane methacry-
late is present in both systems. Thus, it seems that these two
G Model
JPOR 603 No. of Pages 6
6 A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues et al. / journal of prosthodontic research xxx (2019) xxx–xxx
additional functional groups do not affect the bond strength
performance for the studied FRC material.
One relevant issue which should be highlighted when studying
the adhesion of restorative materials is the bond testing
methodology. A testing methodology which leads to stress
concentration on the bonding interface under study should be
selected, otherwise high rates of cohesive failures which would
represent the intrinsic strength of a respective material might be
observed, and not the bond strength between the substrates
[23,24]. Regarding microshear bond testing, it is already described
in previous literature that the wire loop assembly and a reduced
cross-sectional area or bonding area (micro test instead of a macro
test) reduces the chances of cohesive failures [25]. Thus, it is clearly
noticed that the specimen assembly and the testing setup
(microshear) used in this study was adequate for the aim of the
study, since a high percentage of failure at the adhesive interface
and only one cohesive failure was observed (Fig. 2). According to
configuration of this study, different treatments were evaluated at
the post/composite resin interface, which represents an important
adhesion of the post and core in restorative rehabilitation of
endodontically treated teeth which present extensive loss of
coronal structure.
Finally, it is important to emphasize that our study has inherent
limitations (as in all in vitro studies). In the authors’ opinion, the
main limitation of our study is that only short-term aging of the
specimens was considered (short-term test after 24 h in water at
37  C – ISO 11405) [26]. Thermal cycling usually leads to a decrease
in bond strength, and this may lead to the occurrence of pre-test
failure (spontaneous debonding), which could be an indication of
inadequate bonding [27]. Thus, further in vitro and clinical studies
are recommended in order to fully elucidate this topic.
5. Conclusion
Based on our findings, the Single Bond Universal can be used on
the FRC without previous surface treatment. Also, the silica coating
can be used followed or not by bonding agent application, but
being unnecessary when using the Single Bond Universal.
Conflicts of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Acknowledgement
We thank FGM Dental for the design, manufacturing and
donation of the personalized glass-fiber reinforced composite
blocks.
References
[1] Morgano SM, Brackett SE. Foundation restorations in fixed prosthodontics:
current knowledge and future needs. J Prosthet Dent 1999;82(6):643–57.
[2] Goracci C, Ferrari M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review.
Aust Dent J 2011;56(Suppl. 1):77–83.
Please cite this article in press as: A.C. Cadore-Rodrigues, et al., Surface treatments of a glass-fiber reinforced composite: Effect on the adhesion
to a composite resin, J Prosthodont Res (2019), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpor.2019.09.001
[3] Moraes AP, Sarkis-Onofre R, Moraes RR, Cenci MS, Soares CJ, Pereira-Cenci T.
Can silanization increase the retention of glass-fiber posts? A systematic
review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Oper Dent 2015;40(6):567–80.
[4] Monticelli F, Osorio R, Sadek FT, Radovic I, Toledano M, Ferrari M. Treatments
for improving bond strength to prefabricated fiber posts: a literature review.
Oper Dent 2008;33(3):346–55.
[5] Sahafi A, Peutzfeldt A, Asmussen E, Gotfredsen K. Bond strength of resin
cement to dentin and to surface-treated posts of titanium alloy, glass fiber, and
zirconia. J Adhes Dent 2003;5(2):153–62.
[6] Özcan M, Vallittu PK. Effect of surface conditioning methods on the bond
strength of luting cement to ceramics. Dent Mater 2003;19(8):725–31.
[7] Valandro LF, Yoshiga S, de Melo RM, Galhano GA, Mallmann A, Marinho CP,
et al. Microtensile bond strength between a quartz fiber post and a resin
cement: effect of post surface conditioning. J Adhes Dent 2006;8(2):105–11.
[8] Naves LZ, Santana FR, Castro CG, Valdivia AD, Da Mota AS, Estrela C, et al.
Surface treatment of glass fiber and carbon fiber posts: SEM characterization.
Microsc Res Tech 2011;74(12):1088–92.
[9] De Sousa Menezes M, Queiroz EC, Soares PV, Faria-e-Silva AL, Soares CJ,
Martins LR. Fiber post etching with hydrogen peroxide: effect of concentration
and application time. J Endod 2011;37(3):398–402.
[10] Leme AA, Pinho AL, de Gonçalves L, Correr-Sobrinho L, Sinhoreti MA. Effects of
silane application on luting fiber posts using self-adhesive resin cement. J
Adhes Dent 2013;15(3):269–74.
[11] Goracci C, Raffaelli O, Monticelli F, Balleri B, Bertelli E, Ferrari M. The adhesion
between prefabricated FRC posts and composite resin cores: microtensile
bond strength with and without post-silanization. Dent Mater 2005;21
(5):437–44.
[12] Lung CY, Matinlinna JP. Aspects of silane coupling agents and surface
conditioning in dentistry: an overview. Dent Mater 2012;28(5):467–77.
[13] Tedesco TK, Montagner AF, Skupien JA, Soares FZ, Susin AH, Rocha RO. Starch
tubing: an alternative method to build up microshear bond test specimens. J
Adhes Dent 2013;15(4):311–5.
[14] Li R, Zhou H, Wei W, Wang C, Sun YC, Gao P. Effects of mechanical and chemical
pretreatments of zirconia or fiber posts on resin cement bonding. PLoS One
2015;10(6):1–12.
[15] Zicari F, De Munck J, Scotti R, Naert I, Van Meerbeek B. Factors affecting the
cement-post interface. Dent Mater 2012;28(3):287–97.
[16] Schmage P, Cakir FY, Nergiz I, Pfeiffer P. Effect of surface conditioning on the
retentive bond strengths of fiberreinforced composite posts. J Prosthet Dent
2009;102(6):368–77.
[17] Valdivia AD, Novais VR, Menezes Mde S, Roscoe MG, Estrela C, Soares CJ. Effect
of surface treatment of fiberglass posts on bond strength to root dentin. Braz
Dent J 2014;25(4):314–20.
[18] Oliveira AS, Ramalho ES, Ogliari FA, Moraes RR. Bonding self-adhesive resin
cements to glass fibre posts: to silanate or not silanate? Int Endod J 2011;44
(8):759–63.
[19] De la Fuente JL, López Madruga E. Solvent effects on the free-radical
copolymerization of butyl acrylate with methyl methacrylate. Macromol
Chem Phys 1999;200(7):1639–43.
[20] Cecchin D, Farina AP, Vitti RP, Moraes RR, Bacchi A, Spazzin AO. Acid etching
and surface coating of glass-fiber posts: bond strength and interface analysis.
Braz Dent J 2016;27(2):228–33.
[21] Aksornmuang J, Foxton RM, Nakajima M, Tagami J. Microtensile bond strength
of a dual-cure resin core material to glass and quartz fibre posts. J Dent
2004;32(6):443–50.
[22] De Rosatto CM, Roscoe MG, Novais VR, de S Menezes M, Soares CJ. Effect of
silane type and air-drying temperature on bonding fiber post to composite
core and resin cement. Braz Dent J 2014;25(3):217–24.
[23] Armstrong S, Geraldeli S, Maia R, Raposo LH, Soares CJ, Yamagawa J. Adhesion
to tooth structure: a critical review of “micro” bond strength test methods.
Dent Mater 2010;26(2):50–62.
[24] Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA. Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical
review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):38–49.
[25] Placido E, Meira JB, Lima RG, Muench A, de Souza RM, Ballester RY. Shear versus
micro-shear bond strength test: a finite element stress analysis. Dent Mater
2007;23(9):1086–92.
[26] ISO/TS 11405/2003 – Dental materials — Testing of adhesion to tooth structure.
[27] Mair L, Padipatvuthikul P. Variables related to materials and preparing for
bond strength testing irrespective of the test protocol. Dent Mater 2010;26
(2):17–23.