Di f ferent Surface Treatments

submitted to different surface treatments. Forty-eight maxillary canines had their crowns sectioned and root canals endodontically treated. The roots were embedded in acrylic resin and distributed into 3 groups according to the surface treatment: Group I: the posts were treated with silane agent for 30 s and adhesive; Group II: the posts were cleaned with alcohol before treatment with silane agent and adhesive; Group III: the posts were submitted to conditioning with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s before treatment with silane agent and adhesive. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups for adhesive polymerization or not before insertion into the canal: A adhesive was not light cured and B adhesive was light cured. All posts were cemented with Panavia F and the samples were subjected to tensile strength test in a universal testing machine at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were submitted to one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test at 5% significance level. There was statistically significant difference (p<0.01) only between group GIII-B and groups GI-A and GI-B. No significant difference was found among the other groups (p>0.05). It was concluded that the products used for cleaning the posts influenced the retention regardless of adhesive light curing. T e n s i l e S t r e n g t h o f G l a s s F i b e r P o s t s S u b m i t t e d t o Di f ferent Surface Treatments