Evaluation and Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation of an Epoxy, Calcium Hydroxide-based, and Bioceramic-based Root Canal Sealer to Root Dentin by SEM Analysis: An In Vitro Study
Asha Pius, Jain Mathew, Robin Theruvil, Saira George, Midhun Paul, Allu Baby, John Jacob
Bioceramic sealer, Gap formation, Marginal adaptation, Sealer penetrability
Citation Information :
Pius A, Mathew J, Theruvil R, George S, Paul M, Baby A, Jacob J. Evaluation and Comparison of the Marginal Adaptation of an Epoxy, Calcium Hydroxide-based, and Bioceramic-based Root Canal Sealer to Root Dentin by SEM Analysis: An In Vitro Study. Cons Dent Endod J 2019; 4 (1):6-13.
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the sealer penetrability and gap formation of root canal sealer to root dentin filled with AH Plus, Sealapex, and BioRoot RCS.
Materials and methods: Twenty-seven mandibular second premolars were selected and were radiographed at two angulations. The teeth were stored in labeled plastic vials containing artificial saliva and were randomly assigned to three groups based on the sealer, group I—AH Plus (n = 9), group II—Sealapex (n = 9), and group III—BioRoot RCS (n = 9); teeth were de-coronated and the conventional root canal therapy was done with Protaper gold rotary files. Three groups were filled with AH Plus, Sealapex, and BioRoot RCS with the single-cone technique. About 1-mm sections of apical, middle, and cervical third were taken using a water-cooled low-speed saw. All specimens are evaluated using a scanning electron microscope.
Clinical significance: The main goal of obturation is to provide a three-dimensional seal, thereby preventing the reinfection of the root canal and preserving the health of periapical tissues. Because of the hydrophobic nature of gutta-percha, the sealer tends to pull away from gutta-percha on the setting. To overcome these drawbacks, new sealer systems have been introduced to enhance the sealing ability. Resin-based sealers have gained more popularity in recent years because these sealers penetrate deep into the dentinal tubules due to their better flowability, long setting time, and provide long-term dimensional stability. The resin-based sealer used in this study is the AH Plus. It is compared with the newly introduced bioceramic sealer BioRoot RCS for marginal adaptation.
Results: It was found that the AH Plus group had a higher depth of sealer penetration than other groups and the BioRoot RCS group revealed a minimum gap formation than other groups of sealers evaluated in the study.
Conclusion: The Bioceramic sealer revealed better sealer penetrability at the apical third and minimal gap formation compared to the epoxy resin-based and the calcium hydroxide-based sealer.
Lee KW, Williams MC, et al. Adhesion of endodontic sealers to dentin and gutta-percha. J Endod 2002;28:684–688. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200210000-00002.
Gettleman BH, Messer HH, et al. Adhesion of sealer cements to dentin with and without the smear layer. J Endod 1991;17:15–20. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80155-5.
Al-Haddad A, Che Ab Aziz ZA. Bioceramic-based root canal sealers: a review. Int J Biomater 2016;2016:9753210. DOI: 10.1155/2016/9753210.
Rached-Junior FJ, Sousa-Neto MD, et al. Impact of remaining zinc oxide-eugenol-based sealer on the bond strength of a resinous sealer to dentine after root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2014 May;47(5):463–469. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12170.
Branstetter J, von Fraunhofer JA. The physical properties and sealing action of endodontic sealer cements: a review of the literature. J Endod 1982;8:312–316. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(82)80280-X.
Kossev D, Stefanov V. Ceramics-based sealers as new alternative to currently used endodontic sealers. Roots 2009;1:42–48.
Borges RP, Sousa-Neto MD, et al. Changes in the surface of four calcium silicate-containing endodontic materials and an epoxy resin-based sealer after a solubility test. Int Endod J 2012 May;45(5):419–428. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01992.x.
Zhou HM, Shen Y, et al. Physical properties of 5 root canal sealers. J Endod 2013 Oct 1;39(10):1281–1286. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.012.
Lim ES, Park YB, et al. Physical properties and biocompatibility of an injectable calcium-silicate-based root canal sealer: an in vitro and in vivo study. BMC Oral Health 2015 Dec;15(1):129. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0112-9.
Mamootil K, Messer HH. Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo. Int Endod J 2007 Nov;40(11):873–881. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01307.x.
Lo Giudice G, Cutroneo G, et al. Dentin morphology of root canal surface: a quantitative evaluation based on a scanning electronic microscopy study. Biomed Res Int 2015;2015:164065. DOI: 10.1155/2015/164065.
Pashley DH, Michelich V, et al. Dentin permeability: Effects of smear layer removal. J Prosthet Dent 1981 Nov 1;46(5):531–537. DOI: 10.1016/0022-3913(81)90243-2.
Rouhani A, Ghoddusi J, et al. The sealing ability of resilon and gutta-percha in severely curved root canals: an in vitro study. J Dent (Tehran) 2013 Mar;10(2):141.
Lacey S, Pitt Ford TR, et al. The effect of temperature on viscosity of root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2006 Nov;39(11):860–866. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01154.x.
Al-Haddad A, Ab Aziz C, et al. Bioceramic-based root canal sealers: a review. Int J Biomater 2016;2016:9753210. DOI: 10.1155/2016/9753210.
Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensions. J Endod 2006 Apr 1;32(4):281–290. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.02.007.
Kalra M, Iqbal K, et al. The effect of proanthocyanidins on the bond strength and durability of resin sealer to root dentine. Int Endod J 2013 Feb;46(2):169. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02106.x.
Kapoor V, Singh H, et al. Qualitative and Quantitative Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability of Guttaflow, Thermoplasticized Gutta Percha and Lateral Compaction for Root Canal Obturation: A Cohort, Controlled, Ex Vivo Study. Oral Health Dent Manag 2013;12(3):155–161.
Khader MA. An In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopy Study to Evaluate the Dentinal Tubular Penetration Depth of Three Root Canal Sealers. J Int Oral Health 2016 Feb 1;8(2):191.
Elias I, Guimarães GO, et al. Apical sealing ability comparison between GuttaFlow and AH Plus: in vitro bacterial and dye leakage. J Health Sci Inst 2010;28(1):77–79.
Savariz A, González-Rodríguez MP, et al. Long-term sealing ability of GuttaFlow vs Ah Plus using different obturation techniques. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2010 Nov 1;15(6):e936–e941. DOI: 10.4317/medoral.15.e936.