The aim of this study is to analyze the effects of different endodontic irrigants and adhesive systems on the resin bond strength of fiber post cementation. In total, 144 single-rooted, unrestored human teeth were endodontically treated and randomly divided into 12 groups according to four endodontic irrigants (distilled water as control; EDTA 17%; NaOCl 5%; chlorhexidine digluconate 2%) and three different adhesive/resin cement systems (etch-and-rinse: orthophosphoric acid, Parabond^® A+B/Paracore^®; self-etch: ParaBond^® Non-Rinse Conditioner, Parabond^® A+B/Paracore^®; Universal: Clearfil^TM Universal Bond/Clearfil^TM DC Core Plus). Forty-eight hours after post cementation, ten teeth from each group were cross-sectioned into three discs (cervical, middle and apical regions). Thirty specimens of each group (n = 30) were submitted to a push-out test at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The remaining two teeth of each group were sectioned in the same manner, and the resin–dentin interface was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The results were statistically analyzed with the ANOVA test and Tukey’s test (p < 0,01). The adhesive protocols and post space region showed no significant effect on bond strength (p > 0.01). The combination of NaOCl 5% and ClearfilTM Universal Bond reduced the adhesive strength (p < 0.01). The NaOCl 5%, in relation to other irrigants, significantly decreased the push-out bond strength.

Background: Performing an appropriate Class II direct restoration is a great challenge. The correct selection of the matrix system and the elements used for its stabilization will have a great impact on the result. The aim of this study is to show a new digital method for a predictable selection of the wedge and compare it with the conventional method. Methods: Sixty patients were randomly divided into two groups. In Group 0, the wedge was selected intraoperatively by visual examination, while in Group 1 the wedge was selected preoperatively through the measurement of the cervical embrasure on the bite-wing radiography. The number of wedges used, modifications to them, and tissue damage were registered, along with the quality of the proximal contact and the marginal adaptation. Results: Student’s t-test revealed a statistical difference between the number of wedges used, which was higher in Group 0 (p < 0.05). Pearson Chi-square test showed that tissue damage was statistically higher in Group 0 (p < 0.05), while there was no statistically significant difference between groups in wedge modifications (p > 0.05). Group 1 revealed a higher frequency of satisfactory proximal contact and marginal adaptation (p < 0.05). Conclusions: This new technique reduces wedges waste and tissue damage and provides an adequate interproximal anatomy.