Aim: this study aimed to compare the sealing ability of two types of commercially available calcium silicate bioceramic based root canal sealers and a resin based root canal sealer. Methods: Twenty one single-rooted teeth were used, samples (n= 21) were randomly divided into three groups according to the sealer used (group A; ADSEAL, group B; Wellroot, group C; Ceraseal). Roots were then cleaved longitudinally in the labiolingual direction; all samples were then sectioned at three, six, and nine mm from the root tip. The penetration of sealers into the dentinal tubules was examined at 1000x with a scanning electron microscope. Data were tested for normality using Shapiro Wilk test. ANOVA test was used for analyzing normally distributed data followed by Bonferroni post hoc test for pair-wise comparison. Significance level p≤0.001. Results: groups B and C showed better sealing ability than group A in all the three sections. The coronal section showed higher sealing ability than the middle section followed by the apical section in the three tested groups. Conclusion: it can be concluded that both calcium silicate-based sealers had better sealing ability and higher bond strength than the resin epoxy- based sealer.
Background: Despite improvements and advances in materials and methods, root canal treatment is not always satisfactory. After completing the obturation procedures, retreatment might be mandatory in cases of reinfection or inappropriately cleaned root canal. Retreatment strategy involves elimination of the obturating material, and then the whole mechanical and filling procedures are repeated again. Thus, root canal sealers removal shouldn’t represent an obstacle. Objective: The current study aimed is to investigate and observe the cleanliness of root canal walls that were previously obturated with two types of calcium silicate bioceramic sealers compared to a resin sealer. Materials and Methods: 21 single-rooted premolars were utilized. After complete removal of the obturating materials using Protaper retreatment universal system, the roots were cut by the use of a hammer and a chisel, then the middle third of the retreated canals were observed under a scanning electron microscope at magnification 1000x, the amount of clear, opened dentinal tubules was compared. Results: Among the three investigated sealers, ADSEAL showed the largest number of clear dentinal tubules while, a fewer open dentinal tubule were observed with Well Root and Ceraseal. Conclusions: None of the investigated sealers could be totally removed from root canal walls. However, the quantity of remnants of root filling material with well root and ceraseal were significantly more, compared to ADSEAL.
Background: Attempts for preserving endodontically treated teeth after root canal treatment failure have directed the clinicians to surgical intervention; apicectomies with root end resection followed by placement of root-end filling material. Different techniques are used to assess the quality of the apical seal obtained by root end filling materials. Dye penetration is considered the most popular technique. Objective: this in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the apical microleakage of three rootend filling materials.Methods: Twenty one upper incisors were utilized, root canals instrumentation was achieved by ProTaper system. Obturation was conducted by lateral condensation technique using Protaper universal gutta percha points. Teeth were apically resected at an angle of 90° to the long axis of the root and root end cavities were prepared and filled. The samples were coated with varnish, then were immersed in 2% methylene blue solution for 24 hours. Roots were then sectioned bucco-lingually in a longitudinal direction. Extent of dye penetration was detected by the use of stereomicroscope.Results: The highest mean value was recorded in MTA group, followed by Guttaflow bioactive and Endoseal groups, where both almost recorded the same mean values. Tukey's post hoc test revealed no statistically significant difference between the three tested groups. Conclusion:It can be concluded that; all the three groups showed microleakage and none of the three root-end filling materials was able to achieve perfect apical seal. The result also showed that guttaflow bioactive provides a similar reliable seal compared to MTA Fillapex and Endoseal MTA.
Background;The smear layer is considered an obstacle limiting the penetration of adhesive types of cement into the dentinal tubules, thus adversely affecting the bond strength of the fiber posts. Objective;The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of ultra-sonic activation on the bond strength of fiber posts, cemented with self-adhesive cement to the root dentin.Methods; A total of 18 recently extracted single rooted premolars were selected. The root canals were prepared using ProTaper rotary, samples were obturated with Protaper universal gutta percha points. Post space was prepared using gates glidden drills, specimens were randomly divided into two groups of n=9 according to the irrigation application techniques; Group 1: conventional syringe, Group 2: ultra-sonic activation. Posts were cemented using Rely X Unicem2, bond strength was determined by pull out test.Results; A statistically significant higher mean value was recorded in Group 2 compared to Group 1.Conclusions; Ultrasonic activation can aid the irrigation with 2.6% NaOCl followed by 17% EDTA in smear layer removal, contributing in a triad way of cleaning of the root canal system and thus promoting the bond strength of fiber posts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.