Short‐ and long‐term sealing ability of Gutta‐flow and AH‐Plus using an <i>ex vivo</i> fluid transport model

Vasiliadis, L.; Kodonas, Konstantinos; Economides, Nikolaos; Gogos, Christos; Stavrianos, Christos

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01689.x

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(57 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The volume of fluid was calculated by observing the air bubble displacements, expressed in µL/min- 1 .10 psi. Measurements were made at 2-minute intervals in a period of 8 minutes 22,27 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of correlation between tubular dentine cement penetration, adhesiveness and leakage in roots filled with gutta percha and an endodontic cement based on epoxy amine resin

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo analyze possible correlations among tubular dentine cement penetration, adhesiveness and apical leakage in fillings performed with gutta percha and an endodontic cement based on epoxy amine resin. Material and MethodsSixty similar, extracted human mandibular central incisors were irrigated, instrumented and filled following the same protocol. First, apical leakage was quantified by fluid filtration tests. Then, these same specimens were sectioned for analysis of tubular dentine cement penetration and the middle thirds were submitted to push-out tests to analyze the adhesiveness of the fillings. ResultsIn brief, the means and standard deviations with a confidence interval of 95% were as follows: tubular dentine cement penetration (8.875±4.540), adhesiveness (4.441±2.683) and apical leakage (0.318±0.215). The data were confronted using the Pearson's test (P>0.05), and it was possible to prove that there was no correlation between (1) tubular dentine cement penetration and apical leakage (r2: 0.08276), (2) tubular dentine cement penetration and adhesiveness (r2: -0.2412) and (3) adhesiveness and apical leakage (r2: 0.1340). ConclusionAfter analysis of these data, it could be observed that there exists no correlation among the variables analyzed in this study.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lack of correlation between tubular dentine cement penetration, adhesiveness and leakage in roots filled with gutta percha and an endodontic cement based on epoxy amine resin

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…AH-Plus, an RCS widely used in endodontics, contains epoxy resins and amines [14, 15] which can mediate cytotoxicity and genotoxicity [16]. MTA-Fillapex is an RCS containing MTA and a synthetic disalicylate resin.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cellular Responses in Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Treated with Three Endodontic Materials

Victoria-Escandell

Ibáñez-Cabellos

Cutanda

et al. 2017

Stem Cells International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Human dental pulp stem cells (HDPSCs) are of special relevance in future regenerative dental therapies. Characterizing cytotoxicity and genotoxicity produced by endodontic materials is required to evaluate the potential for regeneration of injured tissues in future strategies combining regenerative and root canal therapies. This study explores the cytotoxicity and genotoxicity mediated by oxidative stress of three endodontic materials that are widely used on HDPSCs: a mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA-Angelus white), an epoxy resin sealant (AH-Plus cement), and an MTA-based cement sealer (MTA-Fillapex). Cell viability and cell death rate were assessed by flow cytometry. Oxidative stress was measured by OxyBlot. Levels of antioxidant enzymes were evaluated by Western blot. Genotoxicity was studied by quantifying the expression levels of DNA damage sensors such as ATM and RAD53 genes and DNA damage repair sensors such as RAD51 and PARP-1. Results indicate that AH-Plus increased apoptosis, oxidative stress, and genotoxicity markers in HDPSCs. MTA-Fillapex was the most cytotoxic oxidative stress inductor and genotoxic material for HDPSCs at longer times in preincubated cell culture medium, and MTA-Angelus was less cytotoxic and genotoxic than AH-Plus and MTA-Fillapex at all times assayed.

show abstract

“…Among the silicone-based sealers, GuttaFlow was developed to enhance physical characteristics, such as porosity, flow and adhesion to the root canal walls (7)(8). It consists of a matrix of polydimethylsiloxane filled with gutta-percha powder and nanosilver particles (9)(10), having unique sealing properties due to its insolubility, expanding post-setting and excellent flow ability (9)(10)(11). Recently, the sealer formulation was modified and GuttaFlow 2 was introduced.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biological Tissue Response to a New Formulation of a Silicone Based Endodontic Sealer

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Satisfactory biological behavior is a necessary requirement for clinical application of endodontic materials. In this study, the connective tissue responses to silicone (GuttaFlow 2), epoxy resin (AH Plus) and zinc oxide and eugenol (Endofill) based sealers were compared. Twelve Wistar rats had polyethylene tubes (four per animal) containing one of the tested sealers and empty tubes (negative control) implanted in their subcutaneous tissue. The tubes were randomly placed 2 cm from the spine and at least 2 cm apart from one another. Tissue samples with implants were processed for histological analysis after 7 or 60 days (n=6 animals per period). Inflammatory cells, fibrous condensation and abscess were scored according to their intensity. Friedman, followed by Dunn's post hoc, was used to compare sealers. Differences between the two experimental periods were verified using Mann-Witney U test (p<0.05). At 7 days, most of the histological parameters showed no significant differences amongst groups. Endofill group scored higher than the others for giant cells (o<0.05) and promoted a greater number of samples presenting abscess formation. GuttaFlow 2 tended to show a less intense inflammatory infiltrate compared to the other materials. At 60 days, there were no significant differences between groups in most of the histological parameters evaluated. However, it was observed that Endofill scored higher for macrophages (p<0.05) compared to the control group, and GuttaFlow 2 tended to present lower scores than the others for neutrophils and abscess. GuttaFlow 2 showed proper biological behavior and should be considered adequate for clinical practice.

show abstract

Short‐ and long‐term sealing ability of Gutta‐flow and AH‐Plus using an ex vivo fluid transport model

Abstract: There was no significant difference between AH-plus and Gutta-flow in terms of sealing ability.

Cited by 17 publications

References 30 publications

Lack of correlation between tubular dentine cement penetration, adhesiveness and leakage in roots filled with gutta percha and an endodontic cement based on epoxy amine resin

Lack of correlation between tubular dentine cement penetration, adhesiveness and leakage in roots filled with gutta percha and an endodontic cement based on epoxy amine resin

Cellular Responses in Human Dental Pulp Stem Cells Treated with Three Endodontic Materials

Biological Tissue Response to a New Formulation of a Silicone Based Endodontic Sealer

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About