Review Article
Influence of Eugenol-based Sealers on Push-out Bond
Strength of Fiber Post Luted with Resin Cement:
Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Aline Segatto Pires Altmann, DDS, MSc, Vicente Castelo Branco Leitune, DDS, MSc, PhD, and
Fabr
ıcio Mezzomo Collares, DDS, MSc, PhD
Abstract
Introduction: It is unclear in the literature if the pres-
ence of eugenol in root dentin impairs the retention
of a fiber post luted with resin cements. The aim of
this study was to systematically review the literature
and perform meta-analysis on the influence of eugenol
on the bond strength of posts luted to root canals.
Methods: A systematic electronic search was per-
formed in PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Web of Science
databases. No language or publication date restrictions
were applied. Eligible studies were those that assessed
the immediate push-out bond strength of posts ce-
mented to root dentin after the removal of eugenol-
based sealer and compared it with a eugenol-free group.
Results: Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria
although 2 were excluded after full-text reading and
1 study was identified by cross-reference. Nine studies
were included in the meta-analysis. Global analysis
showed a significant influence of eugenol, which low-
ered the bond strength of fiber posts cemented to root
canals (P < .001). The subgroup analysis carried out
related to the different types of hybridization processes
also indicated a negative effect of eugenol on bond
strength in all subgroups assessed (P < .001). Conclu-
sions: Eugenol-based sealer reduces the immediate
push-out bond strength of fiber posts luted to root canal
with resin cement, regardless of the type of adhesive
system or resin cement used. (J Endod 2015;-:1–6)
Key Words
Eugenol, fiber post, luting, push-out, resin cement, root
From the Dental Materials Laboratory, School of Dentistry,
Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio
Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Address requests for reprints to Dr Fabr
ıcio Mezzomo
Collares, Dental Materials Laboratory, School of Dentistry, Uni-
versidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, Rua Ramiro Barcelos,
2492, Rio Branco, 90035-003, Porto Alegre, RS, Brazil. E-mail
address: fabricio.collares@ufrgs.br
0099-2399/$ - see front matter
Copyright ª 2015 American Association of Endodontists.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.014
JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015
E ugenol-based sealers are still used nowadays because of their long history (1, 2). An
endodontically treated tooth usually needs the cementation of a post to increase core
retentiveness, providing adequate coronal restoration (3). These posts require
adequate luting material to achieve successful clinical performance, and the use of
resin-based luting agents has increased over the last decades (4). When eugenol-
based sealers are prepared, eugenol is mixed with zinc oxide in the presence of water,
and a chelation reaction occurs, resulting in a zinc eugenolate matrix with unreacted
eugenol molecules trapped inside. Because it is a reversible reaction, when the set
cement contacts water, hydrolysis of eugenolate occurs and liberates eugenol. In addi-
tion to this, eugenol molecules entrapped in the matrix are released (5). Eugenol is
a phenolic compound that presents radical scavenging properties (6), which could
delay the polymerization reaction (7). When in contact with resin-based materials,
such as resin-based luting agents, eugenol may react with free radicals and inhibit
the polymerization process (8, 9), reducing bond strength and clinical success of
restorative procedures (10, 11).
All resin cement systems’ adhesion to root canal walls depends on the interface
with dentin, regardless of whether it is mediated or not by an adhesive system. The
adhesive-dentin bond depends on the microretentions created by the demineralization
of dentin surfaces and posterior diffusion of monomers into the collagen network.
These monomers are polymerized, and micromechanical interlocking is created
(12). To evaluate the bond strength of the resin cement–root canal dentin complex,
the push-out test is the most used method (13). When compared with microtensile tests,
it is possible to point out some advantages such as homogeneous shear tensile stress
(14), less premature failure because of no trimming (14, 15), and limited data
variability (16). However, it is unclear if the presence of eugenol impairs post retention.
Some authors performing different methodologies found a reduction in the retentive
capacity of posts cemented after the use of a eugenol-based sealer (11, 17–21),
whereas others did not observe this change (22–25). Thus, the aim of this study was
to systematically review the literature and perform meta-analysis on the influence of
eugenol on the bond strength of posts luted to root canals evaluated by the push-out test.
Materials and Methods
This study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for System-
atic Review and Meta-Analyses Statement (26). A systematic electronic search was per-
formed in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Web of Science databases using
the following key words: ‘‘eugenol,’’ ‘‘bond strength,’’ and ‘‘push-out.’’ No language
or publication date restrictions were applied. Eligible studies were those that assessed
the immediate push-out bond strength (apex crown loading direction) of posts to root
dentin after the removal of a eugenol-based sealer. A comparison of bond strength
values to a eugenol-free group and the mean and standard deviation values must be pre-
sented (in MPa). The exclusion criterion was the performance of any aging process.
The last search was performed in February 2015. The searched titles and abstracts
were screened by 2 reviewers independently (A.S.P.A. and V.C.B.L.), and the noneligible
articles were discarded. Disagreements between the reviewers were resolved by
consensus, and the full text of all eligible studies was obtained. Missing data were
Eugenol-based Sealers on Push-out Bond Strength 1
Review Article
requested of the corresponding authors whenever necessary. Data Meta-analysis was conducted using the Review Manager software
extraction was performed by 1 reviewer; the following information (version 5.3.5, The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collabora-
was gathered: tion, Copenhagen, Denmark) from the Cochrane Collaboration, and the
mean difference with a 95% confidence interval was calculated for the
1. Tooth type
mean bond strength of all groups of the studies included using the in-
2. Endodontic sealer
verse variance method. A P value #.05 was considered significant. Sta-
3. Eugenol contact time
tistical homogeneity (I2) of the treatment effect among studies was
4. Type of resinous cement used
assessed by using the modified chi-square test (Cochran Q), which,
5. Type of fiber post
by convention, indicates the presence of heterogeneity when P > .10.
6. Storage time
If heterogeneity was present and higher than 50%, a random-effects
7. Sample size
model was used. Global and subgroup analyses were performed (sub-
8. Mean bond strength
groups arranged regarding adhesive systems and cement type as follows:
9. Standard deviation etch-and-rinse + dual-cure cement [ENR + DC], self-etching + dual-
To assess the individual risk of bias of each study, the following cure cement [SE + DC]; and self-adhesive cement [SA]).
6 methodological items were analyzed:
1. Screening for caries and cracks on the tooth Results
2. Straight roots The electronic systematic searches yielded a total of 46 results
3. Tooth storage media before test from MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, Lilacs, and Web of Science databases.
4. Tooth randomization After adjusting duplicates, a total of 24 citations were screened. Of these,
5. Single operator 10 studies appeared to be eligible after reviewing titles and abstracts
6. Use of materials according to manufacturer’s instructions and were selected for full-text reading. Additionally, 1 study that met
the eligibility criteria was identified at the cross-reference analysis.
After collecting these items, the studies were classified with a high, One study (27) was discarded because of a lack of answer of data
moderate, or low risk of bias. Studies that failed to report 5 items or request (at least 3 times). After the full-text reading of 10 studies,
more were classified as high risk, studies that failed to report 4 or 3 1 was excluded (11) because of thermocycling samples before the
items were classified as moderate risk, and studies that failed to report bond strength test. At the final screening, 9 studies (22, 24, 28–34)
2 items or less were classified as low risk. were included in the meta-analysis (Fig. 1).

Figure 1. A systematic review flowchart of studies comparing push-out bond strength of posts luted to root dentin after endodontic treatment with eugenol-based
sealers groups and eugenol-free groups.

2 Altmann et al. JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015

 TABLE 1. Descriptive Data of Included Studies in Meta-analysis
JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015

Group Bond
Eugenol Storage sample strength
Study Substrate Endodontic sealer contact time Resin cement time size (MPa) SD
Vano et al, Human teeth None NA Prime&Bond NT Calibra Esthetic Resin Immediate 5 7.5 3.5
2006 (34) Pulp Canal Sealer (Kerr, Immediate (Dentsply, Konstanz, Cement (Dentsply, 5 6.0 3.6
Romulus, MI) 24 hours Germany) ENR Konstanz) DC 5 6.6 3.6
7 days 5 7.1 3.1
None NA Multilink Primer MultiLink Resin Cement 5 8.1 4.4
Pulp Canal Sealer (Kerr*) Immediate (Ivoclar, Schaan, (Ivoclar) DC 5 5.8 2.9
24 hours Liechtenstein) ENR 5 7.6 3.1
7 days 5 7.7 3.2
None NA ENA Etch + ENA bond ENA Cem Cement 5 6.1 2.7
Pulp Canal Sealer (Kerr*) Immediate (GDF, Rosbach, (GDF) DC 5 5.2 2.0
24 hours Germany) ENR 5 6.4 3.3
7 days 5 5.8 3.2

Teixeira et al, Human teeth Endofill (Dentsply, Rio 48 hours Adper Single Bond RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) DC 24 hours 5 5.09 1.83
2008 (33) de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil) 7 days (3M ESPE, St Paul, 5 0.89 0.49
EndoREZ (Ultradent, 48 hours MN) ENR 5 17.42 6.85
South Jordan, UT) 7 days 5 13.81 3.23

Menezes et al, Bovine teeth None NA Adper Scotchbond RelyX ARC (3M ESPE) DC 24 hours 6 5.46 1.92
2008 (30) Endofill (Dentsply, Immediate Multipurpose 6 2.22 0.50
Rio de Janeiro) 7 days (3M ESPE) ENR 6 4.39 1.40

Aggarwal et al, Human teeth None 7 days ParaCore (Coltene, Alstatten, Switzerland) SA 7 days 10 9.303 0.565
2012 (22) Eugenol-based 10 8.859 0.539
AH Plus (Dentsply, 10 8.356 0.618
Konstanz)
Resilion (SybronEndo, 10 8.572 0.256
Orange, CA)

Cecchin et al, Human teeth None NA RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE) SA 24 hours 10 5.22 0.42
2011 (28) AH Plus (Dentsply, 7 days 10 5.16 0.86
Konstanz)
Epiphany (Pentron, 10 5.34 1.19
Eugenol-based Sealers on Push-out Bond Strength

Wallingford, CT)
Endomethasone 10 3.71 0.78
(Septodont,
Saint-Maur-De^ s-Fosse

s,
France)

Manicardi et al, Human teeth None NA All Bond 2 (Bisco, BisCore (Bisco) DC 24 hours 10 9.97 2.52
2011 (29) Endofill (Dentsply, 24 hours Schaumburg, IL) ENR 10 9.0 4.20

polis, RJ, Brazil)

Review Article
Petro
AH Plus (Denstply, 10 7.87 2.94
Konstanz)
Epiphany (Pentron) 10 9.35 2.97

(Continued )
3
 Review Article
The descriptive data are shown in Table 1. Two studies used bovine
teeth as a substrate, whereas 7 used human teeth. The most frequently

0.95

0.66
0.56

0.65

0.61

0.67
0.46

0.98
0.50
SD

1.1
1.0
1.4
1.4
used eugenol-based endodontic sealer was Endofill (Dentsply, York,
PA), and the most frequent eugenol contact time was 7 days. Five studies
strength

applied the ENR adhesive system to prepare the dentin surface for
(MPa)
Bond

2.66

1.39
2.36

4.21

5.13

2.94
2.95

3.96
2.07
1.7
1.6
2.8
4.3
cementation, whereas only 1 study applied an SE adhesive system. Six
studies used DC, and 4 used SA. Six studies used fiberglass posts,
1 used a quartz fiber post, 1 used a carbon fiber post, and 1 study
sample
Group

used both fiberglass and quartz fiber posts. The mean sample size
size

12

12
12

10
10
10
10

12

12

12
12

12
12
was 40 specimens per study, and the mean number of groups per
study was 4. In all studies, the primary outcome assessed was the imme-
diate push-out bond strength, expressed in MPa, of fiber posts ce-
Immediate
Storage

mented to root canals after endodontic treatment. Five studies

24 hours

24 hours
time

presented fracture analysis (24, 28, 29, 31, 32). The predominant
mode of failure was the adhesive between the cement and dentin.
Seven studies were classified as having low risk of individual bias,
whereas 1 was classified as moderate risk and 1 as high risk of
All-Cem (FGM, Joinvile,

Panavia F (Kuraray) SA

Panavia F (Kuraray) SA
Clearfil SA Cement (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) SA

individual bias (Table 2).

Meta-analysis was conducted on 9 studies, which resulted in 29
SC, Brazil) DC

comparisons because some studies presented more than 1 experi-

Clearfil SA Cement (Kuraray) SA

Clearfil SA Cement (Kuraray) SA

mental or control group. Global analysis showed a significant influence
of eugenol, which lowered the bond strength of fiber posts cemented
to root canals (P < .001). The mean difference was 0.80 MPa, the Co-
Resin cement

chrane Q value was P < .001, and I2 was 85%. A random-effects model
was applied because I2 was greater than 50%. The subgroup analysis of
ENR + DC (2.12 MPa; P < .001; Cochrane Q, P = .003; I2 80%),
SE + DC (1.23 MPa; P < .001; Cochrane Q, P = .82; I2 0%), and SA
Ed Primer (Kuraray) SE

(0.78 MPa; P = .004; Cochrane Q, P < .001; I2 88%) also presented

Clearfil Liner Bond

Clearfil Liner Bond

V2 (Kuraray) SE

V2 (Kuraray) SE
(3M ESPE) ENR
Multipurpose

a significant influence of eugenol, resulting in lower bond strength.

(Kuraray) SE

DC, dual-cure cement; ENR, etch-and-rinse adhesive; NA, not applicable; SA, self-adhesive cement; SD, standard deviation; SE, self-etching adhesive.

Significant heterogeneity was detected within comparisons, and

Scotchbond

a retrospective exploration of the heterogeneity identified 2 studies: 1

Ed Primer

in the ENR + DC (33) and 1 (22) in the SA subgroups that presented

outlier results of bond strength (80% higher than the other studies).
The first (33) did not inform the loading direction on the push-out
test, and the latter (22) presented a high risk of individual bias. These
contact time

2 studies were excluded from the final analysis, lowering the heteroge-
Immediate

Immediate
Eugenol

neity and maintaining the main findings described previously (global

15 days

15 days
7 days

7 days

analysis: 1.25 MPa, P < .001; Cochrane Q, P = .47 and I2 0%; subgroup
analysis: ENR + DC: 1.63 MPa, P < .001, Cochrane Q, P = .42 and I2 3%;
NA

NA

SE + DC: 1.23 MPa, P < .001, Cochrane Q, P = .82 and I2 0%; SA:
1.19 MPa, P < .001, Cochrane Q, P = .39 and I2 4%) (Fig. 2).
Ballaigues, Switzerland)

Endofill (Dentsply, Vevey,

Endodontic sealer

Vevey, Switzerland)
AH Plus Jet (Dentsply,

Endofill (Dentstply,

Discussion
Endofill (Dentsply,

AH Plus (Dentsply,

Switzerland)

No consensus was found in the literature regarding the influ-

Ballaigues)

ence of eugenol-based sealers on the bond strength of fiber posts

Vevey)

cemented with resin cements on root canals, not even if the influ-
ence of eugenol is different at different hybridization processes
None

None

(ENR, SE, and SA). For these reasons, this systematic review with
meta-analysis evaluated this point based on pooled results from
previous studies. Global analysis showed a statistically significant
Human teeth

Human teeth
Bovine teeth
Substrate

influence of eugenol present in endodontic sealers on the bond

strength of fiber posts luted with resin cements. The decreased
reactivity of monomer-free radicals when bonded to eugenol’s hy-
droxyl groups may explain the results of our analysis. The eugenol
TABLE 1. (Continued )

molecules are entrapped in the smear layer, and by its radical scav-
enger ability, it protonizes the free radical, blocking their reactivity
and reducing the degree of conversion of resin-based material,
Ozcan et al,

Ozcan et al,
2012 (31)

2013 (24)

2013 (32)
Study

Rosa et al,

leading to a lower bond strength (35).

Studies presenting different eugenol contact times before post
space preparation were included in this meta-analysis, ranging from im-
mediate to 15 days. There are some studies (30, 34) that argue that

4 Altmann et al. JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015

 Review Article
TABLE 2. Bias Risk of Individual Studies
Teeth caries Straight Teeth storage media Teeth Single Manufacturer’s
Study and crack-free roots before test randomization operator instructions Classification
Vano et al, 2006 (34) + + + — + + Low
Teixeira et al, 2008 (33) + — + + ? + Low
Menezes et al, 2008 (30) — ? + + ? + Moderate
Aggarwal et al, 2012 (22) — — — — ? + High
Cecchin et al, 2011 (28) + + + + + + Low
Manicardi et al, 2011 (29) + + + + ? — Low
Ozcan et al, 2012 (31) + + + + + — Low
Rosa et al, 2013 (24) + — — + + + Low
Ozcan et al, 2013 (32) + + + + ? + Low

+, reported in the article; —, not reported in the article; ?, unclear.

post space preparation and cementation at least 24 hours after
endodontic therapy lead to a higher bond strength when compared
with immediate preparation and cementation because the eugenol
contamination is reduced when the sealer is allowed to set
completely. However, the pooled results obtained in this study
indicate that eugenol reduced bond strength, even when different
contact times were included.
Although bovine root dentin may present lower push-out bond
strength than human root dentin (36), studies performing the experi-
ment both with bovine and human teeth were included. This fact did not
seem to influence the results because after adjustments the heterogene-
ity of global analysis was 0%.
Furthermore, studies comparing a eugenol-based sealer group
with a eugenol-free sealer group were included as well as those
comparing a eugenol-based sealer groups with a group without sealer.
Some authors (37, 38) argue that remnants of previous materials may
be left on the dentin surface even after cleaning, and they may change the
wettability, permeability, and reactivity of dentin, thus compromising the
resin–dentin bond strength. However, the procedures performed
during post space preparation, such as the use of burs and alcohol
cleaning (39), apparently remove the sealer’s remnants from the
root dentin, showing no negative effect on the bond strength of
eugenol-free groups. On the other hand, these procedures do not re-
move the eugenol molecules from dentin, thus jeopardizing the bond
strength (24, 30, 33, 34). This may be observed in this meta-analysis
by the higher bond strength values of the eugenol-free groups when
compared with the eugenol-based groups.
The subgroup analysis supported the negative effect of eugenol on
the bond strength of fiber posts luted to the root canal with resin ce-
ments. In the ENR + DC subgroup, the eugenol-based groups presented
a lower bond strength than the eugenol-free groups. Some studies
(39, 40) observed an increase in bond strength when phosphoric
acid treatment was performed after eugenol-based sealer was removed.
Despite that, this subgroup results indicate that phosphoric acid treat-
ment may remove the cement’s remnants but does not remove the
eugenol from the dentin. The SE + DC subgroup also presented a sig-
nificant negative effect of eugenol on the bond strength of resin-luted
fiber posts. In this case, no rinse step is present (41), so eugenol mol-
ecules would not be eliminated from the root canal and are incorpo-
rated in the smear layer in the hybridization process, inhibiting the
polymerization of the adhesive system or resin cement (20, 42, 43).
In the SA subgroup, because of the simplified technique, the eugenol
molecules are entrapped in the smear layer (35), which is similar to
SE, reducing the bond strength of resin cements, as is seen in this
meta-analysis. Furthermore, 5 of 9 studies presented failure pattern
analysis with adhesive failure as the predominant pattern. The influence
of eugenol at the cement-dentin interface was shown at decreased
bond strength data.
This meta-analysis combines data pooled from several studies as a
result of a systematic review to estimate effects more precisely than is

Figure 2. A forest plot. Global and subgroup meta-analysis of included studies comparing the push-out bond strength of posts luted to root dentin after endodontic
treatment with eugenol-based sealer groups and eugenol-free groups.

JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015 Eugenol-based Sealers on Push-out Bond Strength 5

Review Article
possible with a single study. This study was the first to present pooled
data of the influence of eugenol on the bond strength of self-adhesive
cements at the root dentin/cement interface. A possible limitation of
this review is the high heterogeneity present in the first analysis. How-
ever, when a retrospective exploration of heterogeneity was performed,
the outlier studies were identified and excluded. This data handling led
to very low heterogeneity and maintained the results achieved previ-
ously. Besides the different posts used in the studies (ie, fiberglass,
quartz, and carbon), eugenol showed influence in all studies
(Fig. 2). Another limitation may be the evaluation of immediate bond
strength although a significant reduction was already observed in the
eugenol groups. The long-term evaluation of dentin–resin bond
strength in in vitro studies is usually performed by water storage
(12), where bond strength values are lower than those achieved by
the immediate assessment (44). Therefore, long-term studies should
show even more decreased bond strength data.
Understanding the interfaces’ interaction is important to increase
the success rate of the treatment (endodontic and restorative). Eugenol-
based sealers reduced the immediate push-out bond strength of fiber
posts luted to the root canal with resin cement, regardless of the type
of adhesive system or resin cement used. Thus, we suggest that
eugenol-based sealers should be avoided when resin cementation is
planned for dental rehabilitation.
Acknowledgments
The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.
References
1. Gatewood RS. Endodontic Materials. Dent Clin North Am 2007;51:695–712.
2. Zhou HM, Shen Y, Zheng W, et al. Physical properties of 5 root canal sealers.
J Endod 2013;39:1281–6.
3. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated
teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30:289–301.
4. Sarkis-Onofre R, Pereira-Cenci T, Opdam NJ, et al. Preference for using posts to
restore endodontically treated teeth: findings from a survey with dentists. Braz
Oral Res 2015;29:1–6.
5. Wilson AD, Clinton DJ, Miller RP. Zinc oxide-eugenol cements. IV. Microstructure
and hydrolysis. J Dent Res 1973;52:253–60.
6. Taira J, Ikemoto T, Yoneya T, et al. Essential oil phenyl propanoids. Useful as.OH
scavengers? Free Radic Res Commun 1992;16:197–204.
7. Fujisawa S, Kadoma Y. Effect of phenolic compounds on the polymerization of
methyl methacrylate. Dent Mater 1992;8:324–6.
8. al-Wazzan KA, al-Harbi AA, Hammad IA. The effect of eugenol-containing temporary
cement on the bond strength of two resin composite core materials to dentin.
J Prosthodont 1997;6:37–42.
9. Schwartz R, Davis R, Hilton TJ. Effect of temporary cements on the bond strength of a
resin cement. Am J Dent 1992;5:147–50.
10. Koch T, Peutzfeldt A, Malinovskii V, et al. Temporary zinc oxide-eugenol cement:
eugenol quantity in dentin and bond strength of resin composite. Eur J Oral Sci
2013;121:363–9.
11. Mosharraf R, Zare S. Effect of the type of endodontic sealer on the bond strength
between fiber post and root wall dentin. J Dent (Tehran) 2014;11:455–63.
12. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, et al. A critical review of the durability of
adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118–32.
13. Boschian Pest L, Cavalli G, Bertani P, et al. Adhesive post-endodontic restorations
with fiber posts: push-out tests and SEM observations. Dent Mater 2002;18:
596–602.
14. Soares CJ, Santana FR, Castro CG, et al. Finite element analysis and bond strength of a
glass post to intraradicular dentin: comparison between microtensile and push-out
tests. Dent Mater 2008;24:1405–11.
15. Goracci C, Tavares AU, Fabianelli A, et al. The adhesion between fiber posts and root
canal walls: comparison between microtensile and push-out bond strength mea-
surements. Eur J Oral Sci 2004;112:353–61.
16. Castellan CS, Santos-Filho PC, Soares PV, et al. Measuring bond strength between
fiber post and root dentin: a comparison of different tests. J Adhes Dent 2010;
12:477–85.
6 Altmann et al.
17. AlEisa K, Al-Dwairi ZN, Lynch E, et al. In vitro evaluation of the effect of different
endodontic sealers on retentive strength of fiber posts. Oper Dent 2013;38:
539–44.
18. Aleisa K, Alghabban R, Alwazzan K, et al. Effect of three endodontic sealers on the
bond strength of prefabricated fiber posts luted with three resin cements. J Prosthet
Dent 2012;107:322–6.
19. Alfredo E, de Souza ES, Marchesan MA, et al. Effect of eugenol-based endodontic
cement on the adhesion of intraradicular posts. Braz Dent J 2006;17:130–3.
20. Demiryurek EO, Kulunk S, Yuksel G, et al. Effects of three canal sealers on bond
strength of a fiber post. J Endod 2010;36:497–501.
21. Hagge MS, Wong RD, Lindemuth JS. Retention strengths of five luting cements on
prefabricated dowels after root canal obturation with a zinc oxide/eugenol sealer:
1. Dowel space preparation/cementation at one week after obturation.
J Prosthodont 2002;11:168–75.
22. Aggarwal V, Singla M, Miglani S, et al. Effect of different root canal obturating
materials on push-out bond strength of a fiber dowel. J Prosthodont 2012;21:
389–92.
23. Boone KJ, Murchison DF, Schindler WG, et al. Post retention: the effect of sequence
of post-space preparation, cementation time, and different sealers. J Endod 2001;
27:768–71.
24. Rosa RA, Barreto MS, Moraes Rdo A, et al. Influence of endodontic sealer compo-
sition and time of fiber post cementation on sealer adhesiveness to bovine root
dentin. Braz Dent J 2013;24:241–6.
25. Schwartz RS, Murchison DF, Walker WA 3rd. Effects of eugenol and noneugenol
endodontic sealer cements on post retention. J Endod 1998;24:564–7.
26. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic
reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: expla-
nation and elaboration. BMJ 2009;339:b2700.
27. Kurtz JS, Perdigao J, Geraldeli S, et al. Bond strengths of tooth-colored posts, effect
of sealer, dentin adhesive, and root region. Am J Dent 2003;16 Spec No:31A–6.
28. Cecchin D, Farina AP, Souza MA, et al. Effect of root canal sealers on bond strength
of fibreglass posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cements. Int Endod J 2011;44:
314–20.
29. Manicardi CA, Versiani MA, Saquy PC, et al. Influence of filling materials on the
bonding interface of thin-walled roots reinforced with resin and quartz fiber posts.
J Endod 2011;37:531–7.
30. Menezes MS, Queiroz EC, Campos RE, et al. Influence of endodontic sealer cement
on fibreglass post bond strength to root dentine. Int Endod J 2008;41:476–84.
31. Ozcan E, Capar ID, Cetin AR, et al. The effect of calcium silicate-based sealer on the
push-out bond strength of fibre posts. Aust Dent J 2012;57:166–70.
32. Ozcan E, Cetin AR, Capar ID, et al. Influence of eugenol on the push-out bond
strengths of fiber posts cemented with different types of resin luting agents. Odon-
tology 2013;101:204–9.
33. Teixeira CS, Pasternak-Junior B, Borges AH, et al. Influence of endodontic sealers
on the bond strength of carbon fiber posts. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater
2008;84:430–5.
34. Vano M, Cury AH, Goracci C, et al. The effect of immediate versus delayed cemen-
tation on the retention of different types of fiber post in canals obturated using a
eugenol sealer. J Endod 2006;32:882–5.
35. Bayindir F, Akyil MS, Bayindir YZ. Effect of eugenol and non-eugenol containing
temporary cement on permanent cement retention and microhardness of cured
composite resin. Dent Mater J 2003;22:592–9.
36. Galhano G, de Melo RM, Valandro LF, et al. Comparison of resin push-out strength
to root dentin of bovine- and human-teeth. Indian J Dent Res 2009;20:332–6.
37. Ribeiro JC, Coelho PG, Janal MN, et al. The influence of temporary cements on dental
adhesive systems for luting cementation. J Dent 2011;39:255–62.
38. Schwartzer E, Collares FM, Ogliari FA, et al. Influence of zinc oxide-eugenol tempo-
rary cement on bond strength of an all-in-one adhesive system to bovine dentin. Braz
J Oral Sci 2007;6:6.
39. Tjan AH, Nemetz H. Effect of eugenol-containing endodontic sealer on retention of
prefabricated posts luted with adhesive composite resin cement. Quintessence Int
1992;23:839–44.
40. Zhang L, Huang L, Xiong Y, et al. Effect of post-space treatment on retention of fiber
posts in different root regions using two self-etching systems. Eur J Oral Sci 2008;
116:280–6.
41. Van Meerbeek B, Peumans M, Poitevin A, et al. Relationship between bond-strength
tests and clinical outcomes. Dent Mater 2010;26:e100–21.
42. Cohen BI, Volovich Y, Musikant BL, et al. The effects of eugenol and epoxy-resin on
the strength of a hybrid composite resin. J Endod 2002;28:79–82.
43. Ngoh EC, Pashley DH, Loushine RJ, et al. Effects of eugenol on resin bond strengths
to root canal dentin. J Endod 2001;27:411–4.
44. Pashley DH, Sano H, Ciucchi B, et al. Adhesion testing of dentin bonding agents: a
review. Dent Mater 1995;11:117–25.
JOE — Volume -, Number -, - 2015