Data on the push out bond strength of three different root canal treatment sealers

Kurup, Deepak; Nagpal, Ajay; Shetty, Shilpa; Mandal, Tapan Kumar; Anand, Juhi; Mitra, Rajdeep

doi:10.6026/97320630017067

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results regarding the sealing ability can be attributed to the different compositions and properties of the two endodontic sealers under study, namely, the hydrophobicity and shrinkage of AH-Plus ® [ 31 ]. Since epoxy resin-based sealers tend to retract during setting, there may be a disintegration of the sealer in the root canal walls, increasing gaps between this interface [ 32 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Sealing Ability and Bond Strength of Two Endodontic Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Obturation represents a critical step in endodontic treatment, which relies on a core material and a sealer. This study aims to evaluate the sealing ability and bond strength to the root canal walls of an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH-Plus®, Dentsply Sirona, Johnson City, TN, USA) and a bioceramic sealer (GuttaFlow Bioseal®, Coltène/Whaledent, GmbH + Co. KG, Langenau, Germany). Methods: Thirty-eight maxillary anterior teeth with single roots and identical round sections were separated into two experimental groups according to the root canal sealers used, namely, G1 = AH-Plus® and G2 = GuttaFlow Bioseal®, and two control groups, specifically, G3 = the negative control and G4 = the positive control. The sealing capacity was measured by the penetration of the radioactive isotope 99mTc. For the push-out test, the compressive force test was performed in a universal machine and the force was applied by exerting pressure on the surface of the material to be tested in the apical to the coronal direction and using three test points with different diameters. Results: GuttaFlow Bioseal® exhibited superior sealing ability compared to AH-Plus® (p = 0.003). Regarding the bond strength, AH-Plus® provided higher adhesion values than GuttaFlow Bioseal® in the three sections of the tooth root (p = 0.001). Conclusions: GuttaFlow Bioseal® had significantly better sealing ability than AH-Plus® but lower adhesion values in the three zones of the root canal, with statistically significant differences between the groups. However, it is important to note that for the action of endodontic sealers to be maximized, the root-filling technique must be most appropriate.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of the Sealing Ability and Bond Strength of Two Endodontic Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Gutta-percha combined with an epoxy-resin sealer or zinc oxide eugenol sealer are considered the gold-standard endodontic materials for root canal obturation (12,13). To date, numerous studies have examined the removal efficacy of the aforementioned filling materials (14)(15)(16). AH Plus is popular because of its good sealing ability and adhesion (14) and low solubility and disintegration (17).…”

Section: Uvodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Bioactive sealers have been developed to provide improved materials for root canal filling. Newer sealers are based on a bioactive technology to provide a better root canal obturation with minimal postoperative complications and are known for their antibacterial effect (16)(17)(18) and good biocompatibility (19,20).…”

Section: Uvodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The positive bioactive and regenerative properties of Bio-Root RCS have shown the potential of bioactive materials to (19) create a hard barrier (19,22), provide antimicrobial activity (4,16,17) and high pH (>11) (4), and prolong calcium ion release, which are key factors in endodontic and periodontal tissue regeneration (22). Previous studies on the retrievability of hydraulic sealers have mostly used AH Plus sealers (25), but no consensus on its removal has been reached.…”

Section: Uvodmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Zato su potrebne studije ex vivo i in vivo da bi se za kliničku primjenu potvrdila prikladnost tih punila na bazi salicilatne smole s MTA punilom. Pozitivna bioaktivna i regenerativna svojstva BioRoot RCS-a pokazala su potencijal bioaktivnih materijala za (19) stvaranje čvrste barijere (19,22), antimikrobnu aktivnost (4,16,17) i visoki pH (> 11) (4) te produljeno otpuštanje iona kalcija koji su ključni čimbenici u regeneraciji endodontskoga i parodontnoga tkiva (22). U dosadašnjim studijama, kada je riječ o mogućnosti revidiranja hidrauličnih punila, autori su se uglavnom koristili punilom AH Plus (25), ali nije postignut konsenzus o njihovu uklanjanju.…”

Section: Uvodunclassified

See 2 more Smart Citations

Untitled

2022

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely.

show abstract

Comparison of push‐out bond strength of endodontic sealers after root canal drying with different techniques

Sarrafan

Soleymani

Chenari

et al. 2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives An ideal endodontic sealer should bond to both dentin and root‐filling material. This study aimed to assess the push‐out bond strength (PBS) of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)‐Fillapex, Endoseal MTA, AH26, and Sure‐Seal Root to root dentin after root canal drying with different techniques. Materials and Methods This in vitro study was conducted on 160 extracted mandibular premolars. After root canal preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups ( n = 40) of drying with ethanol, paper point, air vacuum, and control (wet canal). Each group was divided into four subgroups ( n = 10) for use of AH26, Sure‐Seal Root, MTA‐Fillapex, and Endoseal MTA sealers. The mean PBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis and Games–Howell tests. Results The maximum mean PBS was equally recorded in ethanol and paper point groups, and was significantly higher than that of control and air vacuum groups ( p < .001). In the use of AH26 sealer, the mean PBS in drying with ethanol was significantly higher than all other methods ( p < .05). The mean PBS in drying with a paper point was also significantly higher compared with control and air vacuum methods ( p < .05). In the use of Sure‐Seal, the mean PBS in drying with a paper point was significantly higher than other methods ( p < .05). The mean PBS in drying with ethanol was significantly higher than that in control and air vacuum methods ( p < .001). In the use of MTA‐Fillapex and Endoseal‐MTA, the technique of drying had no significant effect on PBS. Adhesive and mixed failures were the most common in all drying groups. Conclusions Drying with ethanol and paper point enhanced the PBS of sealers to root dentin.

show abstract

Data on the push out bond strength of three different root canal treatment sealers

Cited by 7 publications

References 10 publications

Evaluation of the Sealing Ability and Bond Strength of Two Endodontic Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

Evaluation of the Sealing Ability and Bond Strength of Two Endodontic Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

Untitled

Comparison of push‐out bond strength of endodontic sealers after root canal drying with different techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About