This study evaluated the effect of glass fiber post (GFP) surface treatment with or without a silane coupling agent, associated with adhesive systems with or without silane in their composition, on the long-term bond strength to resin composite. Sixty GFPs (Whitepost DC no. 2, FGM) were cleaned using 70% ethanol, and randomly divided into two groups, either with or without pretreatment with silane (Ceramic Primer, 3 M ESPE), for 60 s. Each group was further subdivided into three groups, according to the adhesive system applied over the GFP (n = 10): UAS (Scotchbond Universal, 3 M ESPE), E&R – etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Adper Single Bond Plus, 3 M ESPE), and a control group with no adhesive system. The GFPs were centralized in a cylindrical matrix, and a nanoparticulate resin composite (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3 M ESPE) was inserted and photoactivated. After 48 h, the samples were sectioned in slices, two of which were immediately (48 h) submitted to the push-out bond strength test, and another two, after 6 months of storage in water. The failure mode was evaluated with a stereomicroscope under 40× magnification, and classified using scores. Three-way ANOVA (α = 0.05) showed that the triple interaction of pretreatment with silane, use of adhesive and time period were significant (p = 0.019). After 48 h, the application of silane resulted in a significant increase in bond strength values, regardless of the adhesive application (p = 0.013), but this effect was no longer observed after 6 months (p = 0.677). Application of UAS did not influence bond strength values, regardless of silane application or storage time (p > 0.05). As for E&R, significantly higher bond strength was observed after 6 months, compared with 48 h (p = 0.040). When post silanization was performed with no adhesive system, there was no difference in bond strength between 48 h and 6 months storage time (p > 0.05). When there was neither silanization, nor an adhesive system, a significantly higher bond strength was observed after 6 months, compared with 48 h (p < 0.05). Most of the failure types were classified as mixed in both of the water storage time periods. The long-term bond strength of the GFP to composite resin did not depend on post surface treatment with silane, or application of either a UAS or a E&R system.

本研究评估了使用或不使用硅烷偶联剂的玻璃纤维柱 (GFP) 表面处理，以及在其组成中包含或不包含硅烷的粘合剂系统，对树脂复合材料的长期粘合强度的影响。使用 70% 乙醇清洗 60 个 GFP（Whitepost DC no. 2，FGM），并随机分为两组，使用或不使用硅烷（陶瓷底漆，3 M ESPE）预处理 60 秒。根据在 GFP 上应用的粘合剂系统 (n = 10)，每组进一步细分为三组：UAS（Scotchbond Universal，3 M ESPE），E&R – 蚀刻和冲洗粘合剂系统（Adper Single Bond Plus，3 M ESPE)，以及一个没有粘合剂系统的对照组。GFP 集中在圆柱形基质和纳米颗粒树脂复合材料（Filtek Supreme Ultra，3 M ESPE) 被插入并光活化。48 小时后，将样品切成薄片，其中两个立即（48 小时）进行推出粘合强度测试，另外两个在水中储存 6 个月后进行。失效模式在放大倍数为 40 倍的立体显微镜下进行评估，并使用评分进行分类。三向方差分析 (α = 0.05) 表明，硅烷预处理、粘合剂的使用和时间段的三重相互作用是显着的 (p = 0.019)。48 小时后，硅烷的应用导致粘合强度值显着增加，无论粘合剂应用如何（p = 0.013），但在 6 个月后不再观察到这种效果（p = 0.677）。无论硅烷应用或储存时间如何，UAS 的应用都不会影响粘合强度值（p > 0.05）。至于 E&R，与 48 小时相比，6 个月后观察到显着更高的粘合强度（p = 0.040）。当在没有粘合剂系统的情况下进行后硅烷化时，48 小时和 6 个月的储存时间之间的粘合强度没有差异（p > 0.05）。当既没有硅烷化也没有粘合剂系统时，与 48 小时相比，6 个月后观察到显着更高的粘合强度（p < 0.05）。大多数故障类型在两个蓄水时间段都被归类为混合。GFP 与复合树脂的长期粘合强度不依赖于用硅烷进行的后表面处理，也不依赖于 UAS 或 E&R 系统的应用。48 小时和 6 个月的储存时间之间的粘合强度没有差异（p > 0.05）。当既没有硅烷化也没有粘合剂系统时，与 48 小时相比，6 个月后观察到显着更高的粘合强度（p < 0.05）。大多数故障类型在两个蓄水时间段都被归类为混合。GFP 与复合树脂的长期粘合强度不依赖于用硅烷进行的后表面处理，也不依赖于 UAS 或 E&R 系统的应用。48 小时和 6 个月的储存时间之间的粘合强度没有差异（p > 0.05）。当既没有硅烷化也没有粘合剂系统时，与 48 小时相比，6 个月后观察到显着更高的粘合强度（p < 0.05）。大多数故障类型在两个蓄水时间段都被归类为混合。GFP 与复合树脂的长期粘合强度不依赖于用硅烷进行的后表面处理，也不依赖于 UAS 或 E&R 系统的应用。