A Micro-CT Analysis of Initial and Long-Term Pores Volume and Porosity of Bioactive Endodontic Sealers

Radwański, Mateusz; Łęski, Michał; Puszkarz, Adam K.; Sokołowski, Jerzy; Hardan, Louis; Bourgi, Rim; Sauro, Salvatore; Łukomska−Szymańska, Monika

doi:10.3390/biomedicines10102403

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This phenomenon was caused by the un-like values of X-ray absorption for elements of scanned objects resulting from the difference in density, i.e., the X-ray absorption of the abutment and implant differed (was higher) from the X-ray absorption of air. As a consequence, evaluated elements of the scanned object could be easily selected [ 36 , 37 ].…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-CT Evaluation of Microgaps at Implant-Abutment Connection

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assessment of microgaps at the implant–abutment interface is an important factor that may influence clinical success. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate the size of microgaps between prefabricated and customised abutments (Astra Tech, Dentsply, York, PA, USA; Apollo Implants Components, Pabianice, Poland) mounted on a standard implant. The measurement of the microgap was performed using micro-computed tomography (MCT). Due to 15-degree rotation of samples, 24 microsections were obtained. Scans were performed at four levels established at the interface between the abutment and the implant neck. Moreover, the volume of the microgap was evaluated. The size of the microgap at all measured levels varied from 0.1 to 3.7 µm for Astra and from 0.1 to 4.9 µm for Apollo (p > 0.05). Moreover, 90% of the Astra specimens and 70% of the Apollo specimens did not exhibit any microgaps. The highest mean values of microgap size for both groups were detected at the lowest portion of the abutment (p > 0.05). Additionally, the average microgap volume was greater for Apollo than for Astra (p > 0.05). It can be concluded that most samples did not exhibit any microgaps. Furthermore, the linear and volumetric dimensions of microgaps observed at the interface between Apollo or Astra abutments and Astra implants were comparable. Additionally, all tested components presented microgaps (if any) that were clinically acceptable. However, the microgap size of the Apollo abutment was higher and more variable than that of the Astra one.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-CT Evaluation of Microgaps at Implant-Abutment Connection

et al. 2023

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Calcium silicate-based sealers (CSBS, bioceramic) have become popular recently 12 . Different forms of CSBS were introduced as powder-liquid and premixed products.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…CBCS during setting hydration reaction release calcium and hydroxyl ions resulting in pH raise (> 12). As a consequence, these materials exhibit a long-lasting antibacterial effect 12 – 14 . Furthermore, bioceramic sealers may bond to the root canal dentine as a result of hydroxyapatite formation which combines chemically with dentinal tubules 15 , 16 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, bioceramic sealers may bond to the root canal dentine as a result of hydroxyapatite formation which combines chemically with dentinal tubules 15 , 16 . The main disadvantages of CSBS are difficulty in removal (during retreatment), especially at the apical third 16 , incompatibility with thermal methods 17 , resorption over time 12 and potentially unfavourable interaction with rising solutions e.g. ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) 18 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of bioceramic root canal sealers compared to conventional resin-based sealer

Radwanski,

Rozpedek-Kaminska,

Galita

et al. 2024

Sci Rep

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity of calcium-silicate based sealers and comparing them with a gold standard—an epoxy-based sealant. Two experimental cell lines were used, gingival fibroblasts (hGF) and monocyte/macrophage peripheral blood cell line (SC). The cytotoxicity (XTT assay) and genotoxicity (comet assay) were evaluated both after 24-h and 48-h incubation. Additionally, after 48-h incubation, the cell apoptosis and cell cycle progression was detected. BioRoot Flow induced a significant decrease in hGF cells viability compared to the negative control groups both after 24-h (p < 0.001) and 48-h incubation (p < 0.01). In group with SC cells, after 24-h incubation significant increase in cells viability was detected for AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer in comparison to negative control (p < 0.05). BioRoot Flow and BioRoot RCS can be considered potentially genotoxic for the hGF cells after 48-h incubation (> 20% DNA damage). BioRoot Flow and BioRoot RCS, may have potential genotoxic effects and induce apoptosis in hGF cells which may irritate periapical tissues, resulting in a delayed healing. The findings of the study would be useful in selection of an appropriate sealant for root canal filling without causing cytotoxicity and genotoxicity.

show abstract