TFBC presented the highest pH and solubility, but showed similar VC to GFB and AH Plus. GFB showed proper physicochemical properties. Micro-computed tomography complements the physicochemical analysis of endodontic sealers.
Aim
To assess the effect of immersion in distilled water or phosphate‐buffered saline (PBS) on the solubility, volumetric change and presence of voids of calcium silicate‐based root canal sealers (TotalFill BC, Sealer Plus BC and Bio‐C), in comparison with the gold standard epoxy resin‐based sealer (AH Plus).
Methodology
All properties were evaluated after immersion in distilled water or PBS. Solubility was determined by the percentage of mass loss, whereas volumetric change and presence of voids were evaluated by micro‐computed tomography, after 7 days of immersion. The volumetric change and percentage of voids between the baseline (after setting) and the experimental period were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed using one‐way anova and Tukey's or Student's t‐tests (α = 0.05).
Results
The calcium silicate‐based sealers had significantly greater solubility and volumetric loss than AH Plus, after immersion in distilled water or PBS (P < 0.05). Bio‐C had the greatest solubility (P < 0.05), followed by TotalFill BC and Sealer Plus BC, which were similar (P > 0.05). Regarding the volumetric change, AH Plus had a volume increase, with similar values in distilled water and PBS (P > 0.05). TotalFill BC, Sealer Plus BC and Bio‐C had a similar volumetric change (P > 0.05). The calcium silicate‐based materials had the greatest solubility and volume loss after immersion in distilled water (P < 0.05). There was no difference in the percentage of voids amongst the sealers, before and after immersion in distilled water or PBS (P > 0.05).
Conclusions
TotalFill BC, Sealer Plus BC and Bio‐C had significantly greater solubility and volumetric loss than AH Plus. Although storage in PBS significantly reduced the solubility and volumetric change of calcium silicate‐based sealers, their solubility remained above that recommend by ISO 6876. All the sealers evaluated had low and similar voids, even after immersion in distilled water or PBS.
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of QMiX, SmearClear, and 17% EDTA for the debris and smear layer removal from the root canal and its effects on the push-out bond strength of an epoxy-based sealer by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Forty extracted human canines (n = 10) were assigned to the following final rinse protocols: G1-distilled water (control), G2-17% EDTA, G3-SmearClear, and G4-QMiX. The specimens were submitted to a SEM analysis to evaluate the presence of debris and smear layer, respectively, in the apical or cervical segments. In sequence, forty extracted human maxillary canines with the root canals instrumented were divided into four groups (n = 10) similar to the SEM analysis study. After the filling with AH Plus, the roots were transversally sectioned to obtain dentinal slices. The specimens were submitted to a push-out bond strength test using an electromechanical testing machine. The statistical analysis for the SEM and push-out bond strength studies were performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). There was no difference among the G2, G3, and G4 efficacy in removing the debris and smear layer (P > 0.05). The efficacy of these groups was superior to the control group. The push-out bond strength values of G2, G3, and G4 were superior to the control group. The ability to remove the debris and smear layer by SmearClear and QMiX was as effective as the 17% EDTA. The final rinse with these solutions promoted similar push-out bond strength values.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.