Root Reinforcement after Obturation with Calcium Silicate–based Sealer and Modified Gutta-percha Cone

Osiri, Sittichoke; Banomyong, Danuchit; Sattabanasuk, Vanthana; Yanpiset, Kallaya

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2018.08.011

Cited by 35 publications

(50 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The shear bond test could separately investigate a bond between sealer to dentin or sealer to GP/CSGP. Even the methods of the 2 bond tests are different; the result in our study was in accordance with those obtained from push‐out bond strength studies, which reported that the bond of CSS was superior or similar to AH sealer . In contrast, other studies reported the lower bond strength of CSS compared with AH sealer .…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…Bond strength of CSS has been previously reported in laboratory studies using push‐out bond testing, in which the “overall” bond in the root canal model was tested . However, bond strength of CSS to either dentin or GP/CSGP has not been previously investigated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the other hand, AH only bonds to dentin from the adaptation and the tubular penetration to create a micromechanical bond. Additionally, Osiri et al reported that CSS had a significantly higher sealer penetration into the dentinal tubules than AH. For these reasons, CSS tends to have a better dentin bond than AH.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Carvalho et al 20 Bond strength of CSS has been previously reported in laboratory studies using push-out bond testing, in which the "overall" bond in the root canal model was tested. 4,21,23,24 However, bond strength of CSS to either dentin or GP/CSGP has not been previously investigated. The shear bond test could separately investigate a bond between sealer to dentin or sealer to GP/CSGP.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…1,2 Adhesion to the obturation cone and the root dentin is one of the desirable properties for an ideal root canal sealer, 3 which may prevent leakage and increase root resistance to fractures. 2,4 The epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus [AH]; Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, OK, USA) has been considered the current standard material due to its bonding ability with the root dentin through sealer tags. 5 Furthermore, AH has long-term sealing ability, short setting time and better flow compared with other sealers.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Shear bond strengths of calcium silicate‐based sealer to dentin and calcium silicate‐impregnated gutta‐percha

Banphakarn

Yanpiset

Banomyong

2019

J of Invest & Clin Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To compare the shear bond strengths of a calcium silicate‐based root canal sealer (CSS), to dentin or calcium silicate‐impregnated gutta‐percha (CSGP), with the shear bond strengths of an epoxy resin‐based sealer. Methods For sealer/dentin testing, 40 hemisectioned roots were divided into 2 groups. Coronal root dentin discs were bonded with CSS or epoxy resin‐based sealer. For sealer/core material testing, CSGP and conventional gutta‐percha discs were bonded with a matching sealer (N = 20 per group). The shear bond strengths were tested using a universal testing machine. The failed modes were analyzed using stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Results The CSS sealer had significantly higher shear bond strength to dentin than did epoxy resin‐based sealer (P < .01). However, shear bond strengths of the 2 sealers to core materials did not significantly differ (P = .74). The remnants of the CSS sealer adhering to dentin or calcium silicate gutta‐percha disc were observed. Conclusions The CSS sealer had better adhesion to dentin than did epoxy resin‐based sealer. However, the bond of the CSS sealer to impregnated gutta‐percha was not superior to the epoxy resin‐based sealer bonded to conventional gutta‐percha.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Shear bond strengths of calcium silicate‐based sealer to dentin and calcium silicate‐impregnated gutta‐percha

Banphakarn

Yanpiset

Banomyong

2019

J of Invest & Clin Dent

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Root Canal Filling Materials and Techniques

Chong

Chandler

2021

Endodontic Materials in Clinical Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparative study of dentinal tubule penetration and the retreatability of EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow, iRoot SP, and AH Plus with different obturation techniques

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives This study aimed to evaluate dentinal tubule penetration and the retreatability of EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow (HiFlow), iRoot SP, and AH Plus when using the single-cone (SC) or continuous wave condensation (CWC) technique. Materials and methods Sixty-five single-rooted teeth were instrumented and randomly divided into 5 groups: group 1, AH Plus/CWC; group 2, iRoot SP/CWC; group 3, iRoot SP/SC; group 4, HiFlow/CWC; and group 5, HiFlow/SC. The ability to re-establish patency during endodontic retreatment was recorded, as was the time taken to reach the working length. Dentinal tubule penetration and remaining debris after retreatment were evaluated by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s multiple comparisons test (α = 0.05). Results The HiFlow/CWC and iRoot SP/CWC groups required more time to reach the working length than groups that underwent the SC technique regardless of the sealer used (P < .05). The HiFlow/CWC group showed a significantly higher percentage of sealer penetration area than that of the iRoot SP/SC at 4 mm from the apex (P < .05) and penetrated deeper into dentinal tubules than iRoot SP/SC at both 8-mm and 12-mm levels (P < .05). Moreover, the HiFlow/CWC and HiFlow/SC groups demonstrated less remaining sealer along the canal wall than AH Plus/CWC group at 4-mm level (P < .05). Conclusions HiFlow/CWC technique showed better performance in dentinal tubule penetration than that of iRoot SP/SC. Both HiFlow and iRoot SP combined with CWC technique groups required more retreatment time than the other groups. Furthermore, using HiFlow with either the CWC or SC technique left less remaining sealer at 4-mm level than using AH Plus with the CWC technique during retreatment. Clinical relevance With favorable performance in dentinal tubule penetration and retreatability in endodontic retreatment, the combined use of EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow with the recommended continuous wave condensation technique may be a worthwhile choice in root canal treatment.

show abstract

Root Reinforcement after Obturation with Calcium Silicate–based Sealer and Modified Gutta-percha Cone

Cited by 35 publications

References 34 publications

Shear bond strengths of calcium silicate‐based sealer to dentin and calcium silicate‐impregnated gutta‐percha

Shear bond strengths of calcium silicate‐based sealer to dentin and calcium silicate‐impregnated gutta‐percha

Root Canal Filling Materials and Techniques

A comparative study of dentinal tubule penetration and the retreatability of EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow, iRoot SP, and AH Plus with different obturation techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About