An in vitro comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth obturated with different materials

Comparison of the Fracture Resistance of Root-Canal-Treated Premolars Obturated With Dissimilar Materials: An In Vitro Study

Introduction The utilization of endodontic sealers is of paramount importance in ensuring the sustained efficacy and resilience of endodontic treatment. The primary objective of the research was to appraise and contrast the fracture resistance (FR) of three distinct categories of endodontic sealing materials that are frequently employed in the context of endodontic therapy. Materials and methods This research used an in vitro experimental design. Sixty single-rooted human teeth indicated for extraction were utilized according to established protocols. These teeth were then arbitrarily divided into four piles, one for each of the four possible sealants. All specimens were put through a standardized thermal cycling procedure to simulate clinical conditions after the root canals were obturated. The subsequent step involved testing the FR of each group by utilizing a universal testing machine up until failure. Any statistically significant difference in FR among the three sealing materials was identified through appropriate statistical analysis. Results Group 1, which utilized a particular sealing material, exhibited the highest mean fracture resistance, measuring at an impressive 1198.33 ± 321.4 Newtons (N). A post hoc analysis was done to see the exact differences between each group and statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 (p<0.05), Groups 1 and 4 (p<0.05), and Groups 3 and 4 (p<0.001) were observed. Conclusion The FR of Group 1 specimens were noticeably greater than those of Group 2 and Group 4 while the FR of Group 3 specimens was more than that of the Group 4 specimens. This study provides important insights into the fracture resistance of various endodontic sealing materials.

Fracture Resistance of Roots Obturated with Resilon and EndoREZ with Self-Adhesive Root Canal Sealers

<sec> <title>Objective:</title> This laboratory study aimed to evaluate the effect of self-adhesive root canal sealers on the fracture strength of root canals filled with Resilon or EndoREZ. </sec> <sec> <title>Materials and Methods:</title> A total of eighty extracted mandibular premolar teeth were selected in this in-vitro study. All teeth were instrumented using a crown-down technique by FlexMaster rotary NiTi files. Specimens were divided into 4 test groups (n = 20) according to the sealer material: RS; RealSeal, RSS; RealSeal SE, MS; MetaSeal, and CG; (control group) zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer. Each main group was distributed into two subgroups (n = 10) according to the filling material either Resilon or EndoREZ and gutta-percha (n = 20) in the control group. Each root was mounted in acrylic resin blocks and subjected to fracture in a universal testing machine. The load values at root specimens fractured were registered in Newton’s and the data were analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and the Tukey HSD test (α = 0.05). </sec> <sec> <title>Results:</title> The two-way analysis of variance analysis indicated that the filling material had a significant effect on the fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth (p < 0.05) but not the sealer materials (p≥.05). Higher mean fracture strength was recorded in MetaSeal and Resilon group (1281.90±200.34 N) and lower mean fracture strength was shown in RealSeal and EndoREZ group (847.55±191.04 N). </sec> <sec> <title>Conclusion:</title> Self-adhesive (fourth-generation) resin sealers increased the fracture strength of root teeth more than self-etching (third-generation) root canal sealers when used with EndoREZ points. </sec>

In vitro evaluation of the contact angle formed between AH Plus, Hybrid Root Seal and mineral trioxide aggregate Plus sealer with dentin and gutta-percha

Aim:

The purpose of this study was evaluation and comparison of the contact angle of new root canal sealers – Hybrid Root Seal, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Plus, and the conventional AH Plus sealer with dentin and gutta-percha.

Materials and Methods:

Two groups (Group D – dentin and Group G – gutta-percha) of 18 samples each were further randomly divided into 3 subgroups based on the type of sealer used, that is, AH Plus, Hybrid Root Seal, and MTA Plus. Contact angle measurement device (Phoenix 300) was used to measure the contact angle of the sealers on both dentin and gutta-percha. The results thus obtained were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Student's t-test.

Results:

MTA Plus recorded significantly higher values of contact angle on both the substrates, that is, dentin and gutta-percha when compared to AH Plus and Hybrid root canal sealer. The lowest value of contact angle in gutta-percha and dentin was shown by Hybrid root canal sealer and AH Plus, respectively.

Conclusion:

Both AH Plus and Hybrid Root Seal exhibited lower contact angle values, and hence, better wettability on both dentin and gutta-percha as compared to MTA Plus.

Influence of root canal obturation using gutta-percha with three different sealers on root reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth. An in vitro comparative study of mandibular incisors

Aim

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the vertical force required to fracture mandibular incisor teeth, obturated using gutta-percha with three different sealers.

Materials and Methods

Seventy-five extracted mandibular incisors with intact and fully formed apices, exhibiting single root and canal were acquired. The teeth were decoronated obtaining a root segments of 15 mm and were divided into five groups (n = 15). Group 1: left uninstrumented and unfilled (negative control). For groups 2-5, samples were instrumented using Protaper NEXT (X1 and X2). Group 2: left unobturated (positive control). Groups 3-5 were obturated using lateral compaction by gutta-percha and three sealers (AH Plus^®, Apexit^®, and EndoSequence^® BioCeramic™). All the samples were prepared for fracture testing and vertical load was applied till fracture. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test, for the data recorded of the force required in Newton (N).

Results

The load required to fracture exhibited a significant difference. The intergroup analysis revealed, samples obturated using bioceramic sealer exhibited higher fracture resistance (P < 0.01).

Conclusion

The use of gutta-percha and a root canal sealer reinforces the root dentin, leading to increased fracture resistance against vertical forces. Bioceramic sealer group in them exhibited better results.

The effect of different root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth-in vitro study

Background:

The aim of this study was to compare the in vitro effects of four different root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth.

Materials and Methods:

Seventy-five freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were used for the study. Teeth were divided into five groups based on type of root canal sealers used. Gutta-percha was used for all the samples: Group I: AH Plus root canal sealer, Group II: MTA Fillapex root canal sealer, Group III: Apexit root canal sealer, Group IV: Conventional zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE) sealer, Group V: Control (unobturated teeth). The teeth were embedded in acrylic resin blocks and fracture force was measured using a universal testing machine (Asian Test Equipments). Data obtained were statistically evaluated using one-way ANOVA and post hoc test (Tukey's test). All groups showed statistically significant result (P < 0.05).

Results:

Group I and Group II showed higher resistance to fracture than other three groups. There was comparable difference in fracture force between Group I and Group II. Moreover, there was no statistically significant difference between Group III and Group IV and between Group IV and Group V.

Conclusion:

Based on this in vitro study, resin-based sealer was more effective as compared to other sealers and the control group. However, no significant differences were observed between ZOE and control group.

In vivo biocompatibility of Resilon compared with gutta-percha in a pre-clinical model

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to investigate in vivo biocompatibility of Resilon, compared with gutta-percha, at short and long-term following implantation in a rat subcutaneous implantation model.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Male Wistar rats were implanted subcutaneously with either Resilon or gutta-percha or were sham controls. Tissues were harvested at 8 days or 60 days after implantation and were evaluated histologically for inflammation and fibrous encapsulation. The severity of histologic injury, scored on a scale of 0-4 and quantitative analysis of the capsule wall thickness were determined for statistical analysis. Data were analyzed by Student t-test, one-way analysis of variance, Kruskal-Wallis or Mann-Whitney's tests as appropriate. A value of P ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

No behavioral changes or visible signs of physical impairment were observed at 8 days or 60 days post-implantation. Histopathologic observation of the implanted sites at each time-point showed that both Resilon and gutta-percha implants induced foreign body reaction, showing minimal to mild inflammatory reactions in most cases, which diminished significantly with time. Compared with gutta-percha, the capsule wall was thinner (P < 0.05) after Resilon implantation at day 8 and significantly (P = 0.01) thicker at day 60. In addition, capsule wall thickness showed a trend to increase with time after implantation in the Resilon groups (P < 0.05), opposed to the significant decrease (P = 0.016) observed after implantation in the gutta-percha groups, suggesting lesser long-term biocompatibility of Resilon.

CONCLUSION

Our findings validate Resilon as an in vivo biocompatible material. However, our data suggest that long-term biocompatibility of Resilon, despite validated, is inferior to that of gutta-percha control.