Root filling bond strength using reciprocating file-matched single-cones with different sealers

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the bond strength (BS) of root canal fillings to root dentin using the reciprocating file-matched single-cone or lateral compaction techniques with resin-based and calcium-silicate-based sealers. Maxillary canine roots were prepared and filled using one of the following approaches: Reciproc R40 file and R40 single cone, WaveOne Large file and Large single cone, or ProTaper up to F4 file with lateral compaction. The root filling was performed using AH Plus, Epiphany SE or MTA Fillapex (n = 10). Three 1-mm-thick slices were obtained from each third of each root. Two slices were subjected to a push-out test, and the other slices were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine the dentin-sealer interface. Data (in MPa) from the push-out tests were analyzed using a two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Failure modes (adhesive, cohesive or mixed) were evaluated at ×25 magnification. The single-cone techniques resulted in lower BS values than the lateral compaction technique. For lateral compaction, AH Plus and Epiphany SE showed the highest and lowest BS values, respectively. Slight differences were observed between sealers when the single-cone techniques were used. A tendency to reduce the BS toward the apical third was observed. Adhesive failures were predominant for all experimental conditions. A closer adaption of the filling material on the root dentin was observed for the AH Plus and lateral compaction techniques. The Reciproc and WaveOne techniques were associated with lower BS values than the lateral compaction technique. However, the effect of the root canal filling technique appears to be sealer-dependent.

Comparative Evaluation of Radicular Push-out Bond Strength of EndoSequence BC, MTA FillApex, Apexit Plus and AH Plus Sealers as Affected by the Modified Plunger: Base Orifice Size Relation

“…Bond strength was significantly lower in apical third of all groups as compared to middle and coronal specimens with the exception of Endosequence BC sealer in which reduction in bond strength from coronal to apical was insignificant. The results are in similarity with those of Neelakantan et al, [36] Martins et al, [37] Araujo et al, [38] and Topcuoglu et al [39] The explanation for this may be the lesser number and smaller diameter of dentinal tubules in the apical region, which is responsible for the adhesion of filling material to the dentine walls. [40] Moreover, the limited accessibility of apical areas to the irrigating solutions to deplete the smear layer impairs the penetration of sealers into the dentinal tubules and reduces the contact between the filling material and root dentin walls.…”

Effect of ultrasonic and sonic activation of root canal sealers on the push‐out bond strength and interfacial adaptation to root canal dentine

“…, Araujo et al . ). However, lateral compaction may result in voids, spreader tracts, excessive amounts of sealer and poor apical density (Jarrett et al .…”

“…Ultrasonic activation (Guimarães et al 2014, Arslan et al 2016) and sonic activation (Arslan et al 2016) of canal sealers have been proposed to increase their penetration into the dentinal tubules and improve the interfacial adaptation between the material and root dentine. Lateral compaction remains the most widely used root canal filling technique, and it is still the reference to which all other techniques are compared (Gordon et al 2005, Araujo et al 2016. However, lateral compaction may result in voids, spreader tracts, excessive amounts of sealer and poor apical density (Jarrett et al 2004, Rossetto et al 2014, which has motivated the search for techniques, materials and instruments that can provide better outcomes.…”

“…Lateral compaction remains the most widely used root canal filling technique, and it is still the reference to which all other techniques are compared (Gordon et al 2005, Araujo et al 2016. However, lateral compaction may result in voids, spreader tracts, excessive amounts of sealer and poor apical density (Jarrett et al 2004, Rossetto et al 2014, which has motivated the search for techniques, materials and instruments that can provide better outcomes.…”

Comparative Evaluation of the Interfacial Adhesion Ability of Single Versus Lateral Compaction Obturation Techniques Using Different Sealer Types. An in-Vitro Study

“…This technique decreases extra effort and time required for patients and dentists for the LC technique. However, as compared to the LC approach, its adhesion to radicular dentin is questioned, particularly when utilizing standard ZnO/E sealers, [3] which lack the dentin bonding capacity and the ability to deposit mineralized tissue. As a result, sealers that aid in the implementation of the "monoblock concept" for bonding to the core material and the dentinal wall, as well as an enhancement in bond strength and adaptation of the SC obturation technique, are in high demand.…”