Aim:To compare the bond strength of four different endodontic sealers to root dentin through push-out test design.Materials and Methods:Forty single-rooted teeth with completely formed apices were selected. Teeth were decoronated, and working length was determined. Instrumentation and irrigation were performed. The teeth were divided into four groups based upon the sealer used. Group 1: Bioceramic sealer (Endosequence), Group 2: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) based sealer (MTA Fill apex), Group 3: Epoxy resin based sealer (MM-Seal), and Group 4: Dual cure resin-based sealer (Hybrid Root Seal). Manipulation and application of the sealer was done as per the manufacturer instructions. All the teeth were obturated using 6% gutta-percha. After obturation, each tooth was prepared for push-out test with root slices of 2 mm thickness using universal testing machine.Results:The highest bond strength was found in Group 1 (Endosequence) (P < 0.05) compared to other groups. The lowest bond strength was found in Group 2 (MTA Fill apex). Statistical analysis is done by two-way ANOVA and Newman-Keuls multiple post hoc.Conclusion:The push-out bond strength of Bioceramic sealer was highest followed by resin-based sealer and lowest bond strength was observed in MTA-based sealer.

Aim:To analyze the sustained release of intracanal medicaments with or without a carrier and testing their antimicrobial efficacy in root canal against Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis.Materials and Methods:A total of 80 single-rooted anterior teeth were selected, root canal preparation was done, and teeth were divided into two halves and contaminated with C. albicans and E. faecalis, which were further divided into four test groups each according to intracanal medicaments used. Chitosan was used as vehicle for triple antibiotic paste (TAP) and calcium hydroxide and antimicrobial assessment was performed on second and seventh day. Dentine samples were collected after eachResults:All four medicaments used in this study showed antifungal and antibacterial activity. Group II (TAP + chitosan) and Group III (Ca(OH)2 + chitosan) had the higher antifungal and antibacterial activity compared with two other groups.Conclusion:Combination of TAP + chitosan and Ca(OH)2 + chitosan produced better results compared with the combination of medicaments with saline.

Background: The smear layer acts as a physical barrier against penetration of root canal medicaments and sealers, thus compromising the seal leading to microleakage. Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 0.2% chitosan solution, and 0.2% carboxymethyl chitosan (CMC) used as smear layer removing agents in retrograde root canal preparation using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methodology: Eighty single-rooted teeth extracted for periodontal reasons were collected for the study. Root canals were prepared and obturated with gutta-percha coated with AH plus resin sealer. Apical 3 mm of each root resected and Class I retrograde preparation carried out using ultrasonic handpiece and ultrasonic retro tips to a depth of 3 mm along the root long axis. In Group 1 (control), normal saline solution alone was used for smear layer removal. In Group II, 17% EDTA, Group III and IV were treated with 5 ml of 0.2% chitosan and 0.2% carboxyl methyl chitosan, respectively, for 3 min. Blinded evaluation of specimens using SEM was performed independently by two operators who registered the amount of the smear layer present on the surface of the canal walls based on the score described by Hülsmann et al . Results: Group I (saline) was least efficient in the removal of the smear layer. Group II (17% EDTA), Group III (0.2% Chitosan), and Group IV (0.2% CMC) efficiently removed the smear layer from the retrograde cavity with mean scores 1.35, 1.60, and 1.35, respectively. Statistically, no significant difference found in Group II (17% EDTA), Group III (0.2% Chitosan), and Group IV (0.2% CMC). Conclusions: About 0.2% CMC and 0.2% chitosan can be better alternatives to 17% EDTA for smear layer removal due to their biological advantages.