RESUMEN
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.
RESUMEN
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the sealing ability of two calcium silicate-based sealers (TotalFill BC RRM Fast Set Putty and White ProRoot MTA) when used as apical plugs in immature teeth through nuclear medicine. Single-rooted extracted teeth (n = 34) had their crowns and root tip sectioned to obtain 14 mm long root segments to simulate an in vitro apexification model. Were created two experimental groups, namely MTA (n = 12) and BC (n = 12), and two control groups, PG (positive group, n = 5) and NG (negative group, n = 5). On the 4th day after placing the respective apical plug, the apical portions of the teeth were submerged in a solution of sodium pertechnetate (99mTcNaO4) for 3 h. Statistical analysis showed a significant difference between the MTA group and the controls (p < 0.05). The BC group had a significant difference regarding the negative control (p < 0.001) but showed no statistical significance regarding the positive control (p = 0.168). There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.009) between the BC group (7335.8 ± 2755.5) and the MTA group (4059.1 ± 1231.1), where the last showed less infiltration. Within the limitations of this study, White ProRoot MTA had a significantly better sealing ability than TotalFill BC RRM Fast Set Putty.
RESUMEN
(1) Aim: This study aims to analyze the in vitro infiltration of a silicate root canal sealer into dentinal tubules after using different endodontic irrigating solutions. (2) Methods: Twenty-nine teeth with single roots were separated into three groups according to the final irrigation protocol: G1 n = 10) = 17% EDTA (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) + 3.0% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), G2 (n = 10) = 17% EDTA + 2.0% chlorhexidine and G3 (Control group, n = 9) = 17% EDTA + saline solution. Root canals were filled using cold lateral compaction technique with MTA Fillapex sealer and gutta-percha. The sealer was labeled with rhodamine B. The teeth were segmented at the middle and third apical sections, which were visualized using 10× confocal laser microscopy to determine the sealer penetration percentage. (3) Results: In the apical section, no statistically significant differences were found between the groups regarding sealer penetration. In the middle section, Group 1 obtained the highest percentage, and Group 2 the lowest (p = 0.004). Group 1 also presented statistically significant differences in the Control Group (p = 0.031) and had close sealer penetration values. Meanwhile, the Control Group (p = 0.023) and Group 2 (p = 0.029) revealed a significant decrease of sealer penetration between the apical and middle sections. (4) Conclusion: The obtained results support that final irrigation with NaOCl promoted similar sealer penetration in the apical and middle sections. On the other hand, a significant decrease in the sealer penetration of the middle section was observed for the chlorhexidine and saline groups. Compared to other irrigant solutions, NaOCl promotes more uniform sealer penetration, which can correlate with better sealing and, consequently, higher endodontic treatment success.
RESUMEN
(1) Aim: To perform a systematic review of the literature on the biocompatibility of root canal sealers that encompasses the various types of sealers that are commercially available as well as both in vitro and in vivo evidence. (2) Methods: This systematic review has been registered in PROSPERO (ID 140445) and was carried out according to PRISMA guidelines using the following databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Science Direct, and Web of Science Core Collection. Studies published between 2000 and 11 June 2019 that evaluated cytotoxicity (cell viability/proliferation) and biocompatibility (tissue response) of root canal sealers were included. (3) Results: From a total of 1249 studies, 73 in vitro and 21 in vivo studies were included. In general, studies suggest that root canal sealers elicit mild to severe toxic effects and that several factors may influence biocompatibility, e.g., material setting condition and time, material concentration, and type of exposure. Bioactive endodontic sealers seem to exhibit a lower toxic potential in vitro. (4) Conclusions: The available evidence shows that root canal sealers exhibit variable toxic potential at the cellular and tissue level. However, the methodological heterogeneity among studies included in this systematic review and the somewhat conflicting results do not allow a conclusion on which type of sealer presents higher biocompatibility. Further research is crucial to achieve a better understanding of the biological effects of root canal sealers.
