Push-out bond strength and SEM evaluation of new polymeric root canal fillings.
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to compare the interfacial strengths and failure modes of new polymeric endodontic obturation systems consisting of different material combinations.
Extracted human single-rooted teeth (n = 105) were instrumented using HERO Shaper rotary instruments and obturated with different combinations of core and sealer as follows: group 1, RealSeal/Resilon; group 2, RealSeal/Herofill; group 3, Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon; group 4, Hybrid Root Seal/Herofill; group 5, MM-Seal/Resilon; group 6, MM-Seal/Herofill; group 7 (control). Failure modes of root slices (1.00 +/- 0.05-mm thick) after push-out testing were examined with stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscopy.
Hybrid Root Seal/Resilon combination had significantly greater bond strength than all the other groups (P < .001); RealSeal/Resilon combination proved to have the second highest bond strength (P < .001). Bond failure was mainly mixed failure in both adhesive and cohesive modes at the dentin/sealer interface.
The push-out bond strengths of methacrylate-based sealers (Hybrid Root Seal and RealSeal) and thermoplastic synthetic-polymer-based core material (Resilon) combinations were higher than epoxy-resin-based sealer (MM-Seal) and gutta-percha (Herofill) combination.
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to assess the push-out bond strength and coronal microleakage of the Epiphany (Pentron Clinical Technologies, Wallingford, CT) + Resilon (Resilon Research LLC, Madison, CT) obturation system with respect to different photoactivation methods used. Roots of human maxillary central incisors (n = 60) were prepared with 0.06 taper nickel-titanum rotary files to size 30. After application of the Epiphany sealer, the roots were obturated with Resilon cones. The specimens were randomly assigned into three groups (n = 10/group) according to the light-curing unit (LCU) used from the coronal aspect: (1) quartz-tungsten-halogen/40 seconds, (2) light-emitting diode/20 seconds, and (3) plasma arc/6 seconds. Thereafter, 2-mm thick horizontal sections (n = 3) were obtained from each specimen from the coronal to apical direction and subjected to push-out test at a crosshead-speed of 1mm/min. Failure modes were assessed quantitatively under a stereomicroscope and morphologically under a scanning electron microscope. The remaining 30 roots were used for the dye-leakage assessments. Both the type of LCU and the level of sectioning had significant effects on bond strength. The following statistical ranking was obtained for bond strength values: quartz-tungsten-halogen > light-emitting diode > plasma arc. Coronal microleakage of specimens cured with the plasma arc was significantly greater than those of other groups (p < 0.05).Journal of Endodontics 12/2007; 33(12):1464-8. · 2.93 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The effect of chelating solutions EDTA, EGTA and CDTA on human dentin adhesiveness and microleakage with 4 sealers (Sealer 26, Sealapex, N-Rickert and Endofill) was evaluated in vitro. Whether or not there was a mathematical correlation between the tests of adhesiveness and microleakage was also evaluated. A total of eighty maxillary and mandibular molars were used to test adhesiveness. After wearing of the occlusal surface to obtain a flat surface, the sealer was placed with an aluminum cylinder (10 mm x 6 mm). Adhesiveness was evaluated with a 4444 Instron universal testing machine. Microleakage was evaluated in 160 maxillary canines after root canal instrumentation, obturation and clearing. The penetration of India ink in the apical region was measured with a measurescope. The teeth were divided into 4 groups: group 1, distilled water, group 2, EDTA; group 3, EGTA; group 4, CDTA. Sealer 26 and EDTA had the best results (p<0.01) for adhesiveness and microleakage. There was no correlation between the test for adhesiveness and microleakage.Brazilian Dental Journal 02/2002; 13(2):123-8.
- International Endodontic Journal 05/1983; 16(2):59-63. · 2.05 Impact Factor