Influence of bioceramic cones on the quality of root canal filling relative to bond strength and adaptation of the adhesive interface.

AIM: To evaluate the bond strength (BS) and analysis of the adhesive interface in root canals filled with bioceramic gutta percha sealers and cones. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ninety-six maxillary canines were divided into eight groups according to the endodontic sealer (AH Plus, AH Plus Bioceramic, Bio-C Sealer or Bio-C Sealer Ion+ and gutta percha cones (conventional or bioceramic) tested. They were analyzed using the BS test, failure pattern, analysis of the adhesive interface by scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy. The BS data were compared between groups using the analysis of variance test with the Turkey post-test. The chi-square test was used to assess the type of failure and the non-parametric Mann-Whitney and Kruse-Wallis tests (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Analysis of variance showed higher BS values for the groups of bioceramic gutta percha cones in Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (8.38 ± 4.27), AH Plus Bioceramic (6.19 ± 3.28), Bio-C Sealer (5.70 ± 3.18), AH Plus (4.61 ± 2.11) and for conventional gutta percha cones in AH Plus sealers (4.26 ± 2.35), Bio-C Sealer Ion + (3.63 ± 2.29), Bio-C Sealer (2.94 ± 2.32) and AH Plus Bioceramic (1.19 ± 0.89) (P < 0.05). Relative to the type of failure and adaptation of the types of filling material, a higher percentage of mixed failures was observed (gaps between 1 µm-10 µm) for the group with bioceramic gutta percha cones (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The bond between sealers and bioceramic gutta percha cones showed higher bond strength values and greater penetration into the dentin tubules. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The filling the root canal system with bioceramic sealers should be associated with bioceramic gutta percha cones.

Physicochemical properties of calcium silicate cement based endodontic sealers.

AIM: To mensure the physicochemical properties of three ceramic cement endodontic sealers AH Plus Bioceramic, Bio-C Sealer and Bio-C Sealer Ion+ with an epoxy resin sealer, AH Plus. MATERIAL AND METHODS: These properties were measured: hardening time (HT), dimensional change (DC), solubility (SL), flow (FL) and radiopacity (RD). The distilled water obtained from the SL test was analyzed with atomic absorption spectrometry. A sample calculation was made considering n = 5 repetitions for each experimental sealer evaluated. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: For the HT, AH Plus (484 ± 2.76 min) and AH Plus Bioceramic (424 ± 1.23 min) set more slowly than of Bio-C Sealer (370 ± 4.50 min) and Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (380 ± 1.42 min) (p < 0.05). AH Plus Bioceramic (12.56 ± 2.71 %) was more soluble than Bio-C Sealer (6.69 ± 1.67 %), Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (5.67 ± 2.16 %) and AH Plus (0.15 ± 0.01 %) (p < 0.05). AH Plus (0.03 ± 0.01 %) had slight expansion while the cement-based sealers had shrinkage: AH Plus Bioceramic (-1.60 ± 0.63 %) and Bio-C Sealer (-1.38 ± 0.69 %), Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (-5.19 ± 1.23 %) (p < 0.05). Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (59.80 ± 0.86 mm) and Bio-C Sealer (58.60 ± 0.98 mm) had the highest flow compared with AH Plus (56.90 ± 0.56 mm) and AH Plus Bioceramic (49.50 ± 0.63 mm) (p < 0.05). AH Plus (9.17 ± 0.06 mmAl) and AH Plus Bioceramic (8.27 ± 0.84 mmAl) showed radiopacity values when compared with those of Bio-C Sealer (4.90 ± 0.08 mmAl) and Bio-C Sealer Ion+ (4.14 ± 0.05 mmAl) (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Ion release is inhered to these cement-based sealers and this result in calcium ion release.