ObjectiveTo assess the setting time (ST), flow (FL), radiopacity (RD), solubility (SB) and dimensional change following setting (DC) of different sealers (AH Plus®, Polifil, Apexit Plus®, Sealapex®, Endométhasone® and Endofill® according to American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association (ANSI/ADA) Specification 57. Material and methodsFive samples of each material were used for each test. For ST, cast rings were filled with sealers and tested with a Gilmore needle. For FL, the sealer was placed on a glass plate. After 180 s, another plate with 20 g and a load of 100 g were applied on the material, and the diameters of the discs formed were measured. In RD, circular molds were filled with the sealers, radiographed and analyzed using Digora software. For SB, circular molds were filled with the sealers, a nylon thread was placed inside the material and another glass plate was positioned on the set, pressed and stored at 37ºC. Samples were weighed, placed in water, dried and reweighed. The water used for SB was analyzed by atomic absorption spectrometry. For DC, circular molds were filled with the sealers, covered by glass plates and stored at 37ºC. Samples were measured and stored in water for 30 days. After this period, they were dryed and measured again. ResultsRegarding ST, AH Plus®, Apexit® and Endofil® sealers are in accordance with ANSI/ADA standards. Endométhasone's manufacturer did not mention the ST; Polifil is an experimental sealer and Sealapex® did not set. Considering RD, SB and DC, all sealers were in accordance with ANSI/ADA. The spectrometric analysis showed that a significant amount of K+ and Zn2+ ions was released from Apexit Plus® and Endofill®, respectively. ConclusionExcept for DC, all other physicochemical properties of the tested sealers conformed to ANSI/ADA requirements.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the biocompatibility of sealers used in apical surgery in rat subcutaneous tissue. Sterile polyethylene tubes were filled with the following sealers: Sealapex, Sealapex with addition of zinc oxide, Sealer 26, Sealer 26 with thicker consistency (greater powder-to-resin ratio) and White MTA. The tubes were implanted in the dorsum of male rats and after 7, 21 and 42 days, the animals were killed, obtaining 5 specimens for each sealer in each evaluation period. The lateral surface of the tube was used as negative control. The inflammatory reaction to contact with the sealers was classified as absent, mild, moderate and severe. At 7 days, all sealers caused similar inflammatory reactions in the connective tissue of the animals, with most specimens presenting a moderate to intense chronic inflammatory reaction, with presence of multinucleated giant cells. At 21 days, Sealer 26 and Sealer 26 with thicker consistency presented more intense inflammatory reaction (p=0.004), whereas after 42 days, the inflammatory reaction ranged from absent to mild with statistically similar results for both materials (p=0.08). Except for MTA, all sealers presented foreign-body granulomatous reaction at 42 days. All sealers but Sealapex presented a statistically significant decrease of the inflammatory reaction over time. In conclusion, all sealers caused moderate to severe inflammation in the earlier evaluation period. However, Sealer 26 and Sealer 26 with thicker consistency caused more intense inflammatory reactions after 21 days of contact with the tissues and no granulomatous reaction was observed for MTA at the final period of analysis.

The progression of caries in permanent molar teeth of young patients, frequently result in endodontic treatment. This randomized blinded clinical trial assessed the effect of two endodontic sealers (Sealer 26 and AH Plus) on the incidence of pain and apical repair after endodontic treatment of young molar teeth, and secondly identify factors associated with the outcomes. Endodontic treatment was performed by undergraduate students in molar teeth (n=69) of young patients (n=54) at the Endodontic and Restorative Public Extension Clinic Service. Protaper Next was used and the endodontic sealers were allocated which were restored with direct composite resin. Two primary clinical outcomes - apical repair and postoperative pain, were assessed after 12 and 24 months for blinded operators. Description of incidence rates and mixed-model regression using Generalized Estimation Equations (GEE). After 2 years 69 molar teeth of 54 patients were evaluated. No effect of the endodontic sealer was observed irrespective of period of evaluation. Apical repair incidences and asymptomatic teeth were, respectively, 90.5 and 89.3, 96.8 and 90.0% during 1 and 2 years of follow-up. Failed apical repair was associated with unsatisfactory pulpectomy (p=0.003) and periapical conditions (p=0.007) as well as their interaction (p=0.016). None of these independent variables was able to predict the occurrence of pain in both periods. Prognosis of apical repair is dependent on the initial conditions. Endodontic treatment of young molars associated with composite resin restorations performed by undergraduate students have satisfactory results after 2 years and was effective to prevent the risk of permanent teeth loss.

No abstract