Influence of Tooth Age On Intracanal Dentin Adhesion

TL;DR

This study examines how tooth age affects the adhesion of different dental luting systems in root canals.

Contribution

The study provides new empirical data on how tooth age influences the performance of various luting systems in root canal treatments.

Findings

Significant differences in bond strength were observed among the tested luting systems.

Failure modes varied, with mixed failures being most common in younger teeth and with the Speed CEM Plus system.

Abstract

To investigate the effect of tooth age on dentin adhesion of different luting systems to the root canal.

180 root canals of extracted teeth were divided into three age-specific groups (n = 60): young 20–35 (y), middle-aged 45–60 (m), and older 70–85 (o) years. Ten teeth of each age group were assigned to a luting system: Panavia 21 with ED Primer (P21, Kuraray); Core X Flow with Prime&Bond active and Self-Cure Activator (CXF, Dentsply Sirona); Multilink Automix with Multilink Primer (ML, Ivoclar Vivadent); Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA, Kuraray); Smart Cem 2 (SM2, Dentsply Sirona); Speed CEM Plus (SCP, Ivoclar Vivadent).

The root canals of decoronated teeth were instrumented with F360 (Komet) and BR7 (FKG) up to a working length of 8 mm (Ø0.6mm, taper 0.02) and filled with standardized steel spreaders and the selected material. The intracanal bond was determined by a pull-out test. The failure modes were categorized as an adhesive to dentin (AD), adhesive to spreader (AS), cohesive within the composite (C), and mixed (M). Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square test at a significance level of α ≤ 0.05.

The study showed significant differences for the various luting systems (ANOVA, P < 0.05). PSA showed significant differences in bond strength to SM2, CXF, SCP, and ML, as did SM2 to P21 and SCP (Tukey, P < 0.05). M (46%) occurred 53% in y and 70% in SCP.

No adhesive strategy can yet be recommended for tooth age. Clinically available luting systems show significant differences in their adhesion values.

Figures