Comparison of Push-out Bond Strengths of Resilon with Three Different Sealers

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Four Different Root Canal Sealers

The purposes of the study were to evaluate the influence of the sealer’s chemical composition on the interfacial strength between root canal dentin and root filling material, for two different classes of endodontic sealers, and to assess their failure modes. Methods: Forty extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into four groups using the following endodontic sealers: RealSeal SE and Resilon (RSSE); EndoSequence BC sealer and BC Point (EBCS); Endoseal MTA and gutta-percha (EDS); Bioroot RCS and gutta-percha (BRS). Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin, and the roots were sectioned horizontally into 1 mm slices. For each slice, the perimeter was measured. A push-out test was performed using an Instron universal testing machine. For each sample, bond strength was calculated. Specimens were examined by SEM investigation in order to analyze the dentin−sealer−core interface. Results were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey and Bonferroni test. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that EDS and gutta-percha had significantly higher resistance to dislodgement compared to the other three groups (p < 0.05). EBCS and BC Point showed significantly greater push-out bond strength values compared to RSSE and Resilon (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Bioceramic endodontic sealers showed a higher bond strength to root dentin than methacrylate resin-based endodontic sealer.

An In vitro Comparison of Pushout Bond Strength of Resilon with MetaSEAL and AH Plus Sealers

Aim

The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the pushout bond strengths of Resilon with two different sealers: Resilon/MetaSEAL (methacrylate based) and Resilon/AH Plus (an epoxy resin-based sealer).

Materials and Methods

Forty single canal anterior teeth were decoronated at cementoenamel junction and standardized to 10 ± 1 mm length. Working length was determined followed by biomechanical preparation. Then, the specimens were randomly assigned into two groups of 20 teeth each based on the sealer used with Resilon. All canals were obturated using single-cone obturation technique. Root samples were prepared for pushout testing. The universal testing machine gave the debonding force for individual specimen. This was done for all the specimens.

Statistical Analysis

This was done by using unpaired Student's t-test.

Results

The roots filled with Resilon/MetaSEAL had higher bond strength (1.49 ± 0.09 MPa) compared to Resilon/AH Plus (0.90 ± 0.04 MPa) group. The difference in bond strength was statistically significant (P = 0.0000).

Conclusion

Through this pushout bond strength test, it could be noted that MetaSEAL did appear to bond to the dentin and could be used as a potential endodontic sealer.

Efficacy of Different Irrigation Protocols for Removing Gutta-Percha and Sealer Remnants in Artificial Un-instrumented Areas

Objective:

The purpose of this study was to determine the efficacy of different irrigants and irrigation protocols in the removal of gutta-percha and sealer from simulated un-instrumented areas.

Methods:

Eighty-four uniradicular teeth were used. After standardizing working length (WL) and preparing the glide path, coronal flaring was performed. The instrumentation phase was completed with ProFile rotary instruments up to size #35 LightSpeed LSX. Roots were split into halves: in one of them, a groove was prepared in the apical 6 mm. In the opposite one, 5 depressions were made (at 2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 mm). Irregularities were filled with AH Plus sealer and flowable gutta-percha. The Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chloroform in removal of material and the effect of positive pressure (PP), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) (one or three cycles) and paper points were analysed with the chi-square test.

Results:

Delivery by PP did not eliminate the obturator material from any artificial depression. Chloroform, when activated, demonstrated a significant linear trend in the amount of gutta-percha removed at all tested levels (P<0.01). The use of paper points after passive delivery of chloroform increased significantly the removal of gutta-percha in the groove and at 4 and 10 mm (P<0.05). Three cycles of PUI and chloroform showed significantly fewer remnants of gutta-percha (P<0.01).

Conclusion:

Positive pressure was not effective in the removal of obturator materials with any of the tested irrigants. Chloroform delivered by PP in combination with paper points obtained a better cleaning efficacy, although its activation using PUI for three cycles of 20 s showed the best cleanliness.

Comparison between gutta-percha and resin-coated gutta-percha using different obturation techniques

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the obturation quality between canals obturated with gutta-percha/AH Plus sealer (GP group) and resin-coated GP/EndoREZ® sealer (ER group).

METHODS

A total sample of 90 mandibular premolar teeth was divided into 2 groups (2 × 45 canals): the GP group and ER group. Each group was further divided into 3 subgroups (n = 15): cold lateral compaction (CLC), warm lateral compaction (WLC) and single cone (SC). The teeth were subsequently embedded in resin and sectioned horizontally at 1, 3, 6 and 9 mm. All sections were then viewed with a stereomicroscope at ×40 magnification. The area occupied by core filling materials was determined using Cell^D software.

RESULTS

With CLC, the percentage of core filling materials in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at the 1- and 3-mm levels. Similarly, with WLC, the percentage of core filling material in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at the 1-, 3- and 9-mm levels. With SC, the percentage of core filling materials in the ER group was significantly higher than in the GP group at all levels.

CONCLUSIONS

It can be concluded that the resin-coated GP/EndoREZ® sealer is superior to the gutta-percha/AH Plus in the percentage of core filling material.

Critical evaluation of the push-out test for root canal filling materials

INTRODUCTION

The push-out test has been widely used in experimental endodontics but has been criticized on technical grounds particularly because the soft-core material undergoes plastic deformation under load. This study systematically evaluated the technique by comparing push-out strength and load profiles in relation to core material stiffness, canal diameter, punch diameter, sample orientation, and mode of failure.

METHODS

Straight palatal roots of 90 maxillary molars were obturated with an epoxy resin-based sealer alone (10 roots) or gutta-percha (70) or epoxy resin (10) cores with a thin layer of sealer cement. Roots were embedded in mounting resin vertically or at an angle of 5° or 10° to the long axis of the root. One-millimeter sections were tested using a universal testing machine with a punch diameter corresponding to 50%, 75%, or 90% of the canal diameter. Bond strengths (MPa) were calculated, and data were analyzed using analysis of variance with post hoc Tukey multiple comparisons (P < .05). After push out, core materials and canal walls were examined using scanning electron microscopy.

RESULTS

Push-out strength was affected by core material stiffness. Angulation up to 10° from vertical had little effect on push-out strength, but load profiles were strongly influenced by orientation. No effect of the punch diameter was observed when the diameter was 90% of the canal diameter, but push-out strength was lower when the punch diameter was 50%-60% of the canal size.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite limitations, the push-out test may still be suitable for ranking the bonding of root filling materials.

An ex vivo comparison of the push-out bond strength of a new endodontic filling system (Smartseal) and various gutta-percha filling techniques

The purpose of this study was to evaluate, ex vivo, the push-out bond strength of a new filling material (Smartseal) compared with gutta-percha/AH-26. A total of 40 extracted single-rooted human teeth were used. After instrumentation using the ProTaper rotary system, the root canals were filled as follows: Group 1, Smartseal sealer and a 0.06 taper Smartpoint calibrated to apical tip size 30; Group 2, Smartseal sealer and an F3 SmartpointPT; Group 3, AH-26 sealer and a single F3 ProTaper gutta-percha cone and Group 4, AH-26 sealer and gutta-percha using the cold lateral condensation technique. Two successive disk shaped slices were cut from each root sample and the bond strength was measured using the push-out test. Two-way analysis of variance was used for data analysis with the level of significance set at 0.05. Statistical analysis revealed no significant differences (p > 0.05) between the mean bond strengths of the various groups; thus indicating there was no difference in adhesion to dentine between the Smartseal system and gutta-percha/AH-26 applied using either the single cone or lateral condensation technique.

Resistance to vertical root fracture of endodontically treated teeth with MetaSEAL

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the influence of MetaSEAL and AH Plus on the resistance to vertical root fracture of endodontically treated teeth when either the matched-taper single-cone or lateral condensation technique was used.

METHODS

Ninety extracted single-canal mandibular premolar teeth were sectioned, leaving a standard root length of 13 mm. The buccolingual and mesiodistal diameters were measured, and the teeth were randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 15). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of the diameters. In group 1, no instrumentation or obturation was performed. The rest of the roots were chemomechanically prepared with nickel-titanium ProTaper rotary instruments up to size F3 at the working length. Group 2 was left unobturated. Groups 3 and 4 were obturated with AH Plus used with the matched-taper single-cone and lateral condensation techniques, respectively. In groups 5 and 6, MetaSEAL was used instead of AH Plus. All of the roots were mounted vertically in self-curing acrylic resin blocks that exposed 8 mm of the coronal part. Then the roots were subjected to a vertical loading force (1 mm/min). The force required to produce a fracture was recorded in newtons. The data were analyzed by using Kruskal-Wallis and post hoc Dunn multiple comparison tests (P < .05).

RESULTS

Although we did not detect statistical significance, there was a substantial difference between the fracture resistance values of the intact and instrumented but not obturated roots. The groups in which AH Plus and MetaSEAL were used with the matched-taper single-cone technique showed significantly higher fracture resistance values than the instrumented but not obturated roots (P < .05). There were no significant differences between the groups submitted to the matched-taper single-cone technique. The force required to fracture the roots in the group treated with AH Plus and the lateral condensation technique was similar to that required to fracture intact roots, whereas the group treated with MetaSEAL and the lateral condensation technique revealed comparable values to the instrumented but not obturated roots.

CONCLUSIONS

When used with the matched-taper single-cone technique, MetaSEAL and AH Plus have the potential to reinforce endodontically treated teeth.