Is An Oxygen Inhibited Layer Required for Bonding of Resin-Coated Gutta-Percha to a Methacrylate-Based Root Canal Sealer?

Methodological proposal for evaluation of adhesion of root canal sealers to gutta-percha

AIM

To compare the bond strength of an epoxy resin-based sealer and two calcium silicate-based sealers (CSS) to gutta-percha discs using a new method.

METHODOLOGY

Round discs of gutta-percha (n = 60), measuring 10 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness, were placed on a glass plate and a drop of each sealer (AH Plus, EndoSequence BC Sealer and EndoSeal MTA) was placed on their surface. Another identical disc was placed onto the first one and a standardized weight (0.0981 N) applied over them using a specially developed apparatus. Ten samples prepared for each sealer were submitted to a microshear bond strength test accomplished by a specially designed set-up coupled to a universal testing machine. The Kruskal-Wallis test followed by a post hoc procedure was used to compare groups considering the preliminary analysis of the raw data had indicated the nonadherence to a Gaussian distribution (Shapiro-Wilk, p < .05). Alpha error was set at 5%.

RESULTS

Overall, no premature failure occurred. All sealers had some degree of adhesiveness to gutta-percha discs but with a significant difference amongst them (Kruskal-Wallis, p = .019). The epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus) had significantly higher median shear bond strength values (1.43 MPa; 1.40-1.83) compared to EndoSeal MTA (0.53 MPa; 0.46-0.73) (p = .021) and EndoSequence BC Sealer (0.45 MPa; 0.34-0.46) (p = .023), whilst the lowest median value was observed with EndoSequence BC Sealer (0.45 MPa; 0.34-0.46) (p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

CSS sealers had weaker bonding to gutta-percha when compared to the epoxy resin-based AH Plus sealer. The proposed methodology is an innovative and reproducible method for testing the bond strength of root canal sealers to gutta-percha.

The influence of four dual-cure resin cements and surface treatment selection to bond strength of fiber post

In this study, we evaluate the influence of post surface pre-treatments on the bond strength of four different cements to glass fiber posts. Eighty extracted human maxillary central incisors and canines were endodontically treated and standardized post spaces were prepared. Four post pre-treatments were tested: (i) no pre-treatment (NS, control), (ii) sandblasting (SA), (iii) silanization (SI) and (iv) sandblasting followed by silanization (SS). Per pre-treatment, four dual-cure resin cements were used for luting posts: DMG LUXACORE Smartmix Dual, Multilink Automix, RelyX Unicem and Panavia F2.0. All the specimens were subjected to micro push-out test. Two-way analysis of variance and Tukey post hoc tests were performed (α=0.05) to analyze the data. Bond strength was significantly affected by the type of resin cement, and bond strengths of RelyX Unicem and Panavia F2.0 to the fiber posts were significantly higher than the other cement groups. Sandblasting significantly increased the bond strength of DMG group to the fiber posts.

A laboratory evaluation of the physical and mechanical properties of selected root canal sealers

AIM

To evaluate and compare the porosity, degree of conversion (DC) and hardness of two resin-based sealers; RealSeal and EndoRez, and a silicon-based sealer; GuttaFlow to that of a traditional zinc oxide-based sealer; TubliSeal.

METHODOLOGY

For porosity, four samples from each sealer were prepared and scanned using a SkyScan 1072 Micro-CT. Porosity was then calculated using specialized software. For DC, 10 samples from each sealer were prepared and placed onto a Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy spectrometer. Spectra readings were carried out before and after curing of the sealers, and the DC for each sealer was calculated. For hardness, 10 samples from each sealer were prepared and then tested using a Wallace hardness tester. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis of the data using one-way anova and independent t-tests.

RESULTS

TubliSeal had the highest percentage porosity (3.52%), whilst RealSeal had the lowest percentage porosity (0.41%). Statistically significant differences (P = 0.01) in porosity were present between all groups except between RealSeal and EndoRez groups. RealSeal exhibited a significantly higher DC% than EndoRez (P = 0.01), whereas EndoRez had the highest hardness number [28.54 Vickers hardness number (VHN)] whilst TubliSeal showed the lowest (13.57 VHN). Statistically significant differences in hardness were found between all groups (P = 0.01) except between RealSeal and EndoRez groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Resin-based sealers had less porosity, greater hardness and a high DC.

Adhesion of an endodontic sealer to dentin and gutta-percha: shear and push-out bond strength measurements and SEM analysis

The use of an adequate method for evaluation of the adhesion of root canal filling materials provides more reliable results to allow comparison of the materials and substantiate their clinical choice. The aims of this study were to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) test and push-out test for evaluation of the adhesion of an epoxy-based endodontic sealer (AH Plus) to dentin and guttapercha, and to assess the failure modes on the debonded surfaces by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Three groups were established (n=7): in group 1, root cylinders obtained from human canines were embedded in acrylic resin and had their canals prepared and filled with sealer; in group 2, longitudinal sections of dentin cylinders were embedded in resin with the canal surface smoothed and turned upwards; in group 3, gutta-percha cylinders were embedded in resin. Polyethylene tubes filled with sealer were positioned on the polished surface of the specimens (groups 2 and 3). The push-out test (group 1) and the SBS test (groups 2 and 3) were performed in an Instron universal testing machine running at crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Means (±SD) in MPa were: G1 (8.8±1.13), G2 (5.9±1.05) and G3 (3.8±0.55). Statistical analysis by ANOVA and Student's t-test (α=0.05) revealed statistically significant differences (p<0.01) among the groups. SEM analysis showed a predominance of adhesive and mixed failures of AH Plus sealer. The tested surface affected significantly the results with the sealer reaching higher bond strength to dentin than to guttapercha with the SBS test. The comparison of the employed methodologies showed that the SBS test produced significantly lower bond strength values than the push-out test, was skilful in determining the adhesion of AH Plus sealer to dentin and gutta-percha, and required specimens that could be easily prepared for SEM, presenting as a viable alternative for further experiments.

Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal

The term monoblock has become familiar in the endodontic literature with recent interest in the application of dentin adhesive technology to endodontics. Endodontic monoblocks have generated controversial discussions among academicians and clinicians as to whether they are able to improve the quality of seal in root fillings and to strengthen roots. This review attempts to provide a broader meaning to the term monoblock and to see how this definition may be applied to the materials that have been used in the past and present for rehabilitation of the root canal space. The potential of currently available bondable materials to achieve mechanically homogeneous units with root dentin is then discussed in relation to the classical concept in which the term monoblock was first employed in restorative dentistry and subsequently in endodontics.