Effect of ultrasonic activation on setting time, pH and calcium ion release, solubility, and chemical structure of calcium silicate sealers.

This study evaluated the setting time, pH, calcium ion release, solubility, and chemical structure of four calcium silicate sealers after ultrasonic activation (UA). Five sealers were evaluated: Sealer Plus (SP - control); Sealer Plus BC (SPBC), Bio C Sealers (BCS), Endosequence BC Sealer (EBC), and BioRoot RCS (BR). Ten groups were created based on the use or not of ultrasonic activation: SP; SP/UA; SPBC; SPBC/UA; BCS; BCS/UA; EBC; EBC/UA; BR; and BR/UA. Setting time was performed based on ISO 6876:2012 and ASTM C266-07 specifications. Solubility at 24hs, based on ISO 6876:2012. pH and calcium release were evaluated at 1, 24, 72, and 168hs. Raman spectroscopy was used to evaluate structural changes. Quantitative data were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test (α=5%). Raman spectroscopy results were qualitatively analyzed. Setting times and solubility of all sealers were not affected by UA (p>0.05). The highest solubility was found for BCS, BCS/UA; and BR, BR/UA (p<0.05). After 24hs, calcium silicate sealers had higher pH than SP and SP/UA (p<0.05). BR and BR/UA had the highest pH at all time points. SP and SP/UA had stable pH at all time points. SP and SP/UA had the lowest calcium release values at all time points (p<0.05). EBC and EBC/UA calcium release significantly differ at 24,72 and 168hs (p<0.05). No chemical changes were observed during Raman spectroscopy. In conclusion, ultrasonic activation affected calcium ion release only for EndoSequence BC Sealer. Ultrasonic activation did not influence the initial and final setting time, solubility, pH, and chemical structure of any investigated sealers.

Effect of ultrasonic activation on setting time, pH and calcium ion release, solubility, and chemical structure of calcium silicate sealers

Abstract This study evaluated the setting time, pH, calcium ion release, solubility, and chemical structure of four calcium silicate sealers after ultrasonic activation (UA). Five sealers were evaluated: Sealer Plus (SP - control); Sealer Plus BC (SPBC), Bio C Sealers (BCS), Endosequence BC Sealer (EBC), and BioRoot RCS (BR). Ten groups were created based on the use or not of ultrasonic activation: SP; SP/UA; SPBC; SPBC/UA; BCS; BCS/UA; EBC; EBC/UA; BR; and BR/UA. Setting time was performed based on ISO 6876:2012 and ASTM C266-07 specifications. Solubility at 24hs, based on ISO 6876:2012. pH and calcium release were evaluated at 1, 24, 72, and 168hs. Raman spectroscopy was used to evaluate structural changes. Quantitative data were analyzed using One-Way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc test (α=5%). Raman spectroscopy results were qualitatively analyzed. Setting times and solubility of all sealers were not affected by UA (p>0.05). The highest solubility was found for BCS, BCS/UA; and BR, BR/UA (p<0.05). After 24hs, calcium silicate sealers had higher pH than SP and SP/UA (p<0.05). BR and BR/UA had the highest pH at all time points. SP and SP/UA had stable pH at all time points. SP and SP/UA had the lowest calcium release values at all time points (p<0.05). EBC and EBC/UA calcium release significantly differ at 24,72 and 168hs (p<0.05). No chemical changes were observed during Raman spectroscopy. In conclusion, ultrasonic activation affected calcium ion release only for EndoSequence BC Sealer. Ultrasonic activation did not influence the initial and final setting time, solubility, pH, and chemical structure of any investigated sealers.

Resumo Esse estudo avaliou o tempo de presa, pH, liberação de íons cálcio, solubilidade e estrutura química de quatro cimentos à base de silicate de cálcio após a ativação ultrassônica . Cinco cimentos foram avaliados: Sealer Plus (SP - control); Sealer Plus BC (SPBC), Bio C Sealers (BCS), Endosequence BC Sealer (EBC) e BioRoot RCS (BR). Dez grupos foram criados com base no uso ou não de ativação ultrassônica: SP; SP/UA; SPBC; SPBC/UA; BCS; BCS/UA; EBC; EBC/UA; BR; e BR/UA. Tempo de presa foi realizado baseado nas especificações ISO 6876:2012 e ASTM C266-07. Solubilidade em 24hs, baseado na ISO 6876:2012. pH e liberação de cálcio foram avaliados em 1, 24, 72 e 168hs. Espectroscopia Raman foi usada para avaliar alterações estruturais. Os dados quantitativos foram analisados utilizando ANOVA de uma via e teste post-hoc de Tukey (α=5%). Os resultados da espectroscopia Raman foram analisados qualitativamente. Os tempos de presa e a solubilidade de todos os cimentos não foram afetados pelo AU (p>0.05). Maior solubilidade foi encontrada para BCS, BCS/AU; e BR, BR/AU (p<0.05). Após 24hs, os cimentos de silicato de cálcio apresentaram pH mais elevado que SP e SP/AU (p<0.05). BR e BR/AU tiveram o pH mais alto em todos os momentos. SP e SP/AU apresentaram pH estável em todos os momentos. SP e SP/AU tiveram os menores valores de liberação de cálcio em todos os momentos (p<0.05). A liberação de cálcio EBC e EBC/AU diferiram significativamente em 24,72 e 168hs (p<0.05). Nenhuma alteração química foi observada durante a espectroscopia Raman. Em conclusão, a ativação ultrassônica afetou a liberação de íons cálcio apenas para o EndoSequence BC Sealer. A ativação ultrassônica não influenciou o tempo de presa inicial e final, a solubilidade, o pH e a estrutura química de nenhum dos cimentos investigados.

Influence of the timing of periodontal intervention on periapical/periodontal repair in endodontic-periodontal lesions: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: This study is aimed at answering the following question: "Does the timing of periodontal intervention influence the periapical/periodontal repair in endodontic-periodontal lesions?". MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six electronic databases were systematically searched for studies published up to April 2022, without restriction of language or year of publication, following the PIOS strategy: (P) adult patients with a diagnosis of endodontic-periodontal lesions, (I) endodontic and periodontal treatment, (O) periapical and periodontal healing, and (S) clinical studies. Risk of bias assessment was performed with the revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials (RoB 2) and non-randomized interventions (ROBINS-I). The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. RESULTS: Three studies (one prospective, one retrospective, and one randomized clinical trial) were included in the present review. Non-randomized studies had a critical and serious risk of bias. The randomized clinical trial had some concerns risk of bias. Non-randomized studies reported that the endodontic intervention should be performed previous to the periodontal intervention. Randomized clinical trial reported improvements when endodontic and periodontal interventions were performed simultaneously. GRADE analysis showed a very low quality of evidence for both randomized and nonrandomized studies. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the evidence from the included studies, although it is suggested that the endodontic treatment should be performed prior to periodontal treatment, it is not possible to assure the best treatment sequence for endodontic-periodontal lesions. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Evidences suggests that although the endodontic intervention should be the first therapy of choice, it was not possible to specify the best time to perform the periodontal intervention.