Sealing efficacy of system B versus Thermafil and Guttacore obturation techniques evidenced by scintigraphic analysis

Evaluation of the Sealing Ability and Bond Strength of Two Endodontic Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

BACKGROUND

Obturation represents a critical step in endodontic treatment, which relies on a core material and a sealer. This study aims to evaluate the sealing ability and bond strength to the root canal walls of an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH-Plus®, Dentsply Sirona, Johnson City, TN, USA) and a bioceramic sealer (GuttaFlow Bioseal®, Coltène/Whaledent, GmbH + Co. KG, Langenau, Germany).

METHODS

Thirty-eight maxillary anterior teeth with single roots and identical round sections were separated into two experimental groups according to the root canal sealers used, namely, G1 = AH-Plus® and G2 = GuttaFlow Bioseal®, and two control groups, specifically, G3 = the negative control and G4 = the positive control. The sealing capacity was measured by the penetration of the radioactive isotope 99mTc. For the push-out test, the compressive force test was performed in a universal machine and the force was applied by exerting pressure on the surface of the material to be tested in the apical to the coronal direction and using three test points with different diameters.

RESULTS

GuttaFlow Bioseal® exhibited superior sealing ability compared to AH-Plus® (p = 0.003). Regarding the bond strength, AH-Plus® provided higher adhesion values than GuttaFlow Bioseal® in the three sections of the tooth root (p = 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

GuttaFlow Bioseal® had significantly better sealing ability than AH-Plus® but lower adhesion values in the three zones of the root canal, with statistically significant differences between the groups. However, it is important to note that for the action of endodontic sealers to be maximized, the root-filling technique must be most appropriate.

Thermafil: A New Clinical Approach Due to New Dimensional Evaluations

Background

There are a lot of techniques to obturate the root canals, but lateral condensation of gutta-percha is the most used one. An important aspect of thermafil is the error margin tolerated by the manufacturer in the production of plastic carriers. In literature, there is no evidence about discrepancy percentage between different carriers. It is demonstrated that the error margin of gutta-percha is 0.5% and is 0.2% for metal files (ISO standards).

Objective

The aim of this study was to evaluate the real dimensions of thermafil plastic carriers observed by the stereo microscope measuring the dimensional discrepancy between them.

Methods

For this study, 80 new thermafil (Dentsply Maillefer) have been selected. 40 thermafil 0.25 and 40 thermafil 0.30. Through 60X stereo microscope, the dimensions of the plastic carrier tips have been measured. The dimensions of the plastic carrier were also measured after a heating cycle. ZL GAL 11TUSM (Zetaline stereo evolution) microscope was used to observe the samples. Measurements were made through a dedicated software (Image Focus). All samples were analysed at 60X.

Results

A non-parametric paired test (Wilcoxon test) was used to compare baseline and after heating values; p-values ≤ 0.05 were assumed to be statistically significant.

Conclusion

The samples we measured showed a mean value of the diameters in Thermafil 25 that was 0.27 mm, for Thermafil 30 the mean value was 0.33 mm.We have measured a dimensional variable of 8% in the 25 group while in group 30 the maximum possible variation found was 4%, that's why we propose a new protocol of obturation with thermafil. We can also conclude that a single heating process does not affect clinically the plastic carrier dimensions.