Calcium Hydroxide improves epoxy sealer adhesion on root dentin

Abstract

<p><strong>Objective</strong>: The aim of this study is to evaluate the adhesion of an endodontic sealer (AHPlus in root canals after the use of different protocols of 17% EDTA and the use of intracanal medication (ICM) based on calcium hydroxide in aqueous vehicle. <strong>Material and Methods</strong>: For this, 72 single-rooted human teeth were instrumented up to #50 and divided into six groups (n = 12). Group 1: EDTA for 3 min; Group 2: 3 mL of EDTA + 3 min of EDTA; Group 3: 3 mL of EDTA + 3 min of EDTA + 30 seconds of ultrasonic agitation; Group 4: EDTA for 3 min + ICM; Group 5: 3 mL of EDTA + 3 min of EDTA + ICM; Group 6: 3 mL of EDTA + 3 min of EDTA + 30 seconds of ultrasonic agitation + ICM. The root canals were filled with endodontic sealer after each protocol and after 7 days they were prepared to the push-out test. The data were analyzed using ANOVA two factors (p < 0.05). <strong>Results</strong>: It was observed no statistically difference in bond strength in the 3 different 17% EDTA protocols. However, the use of ICM increased significantly the resistance adhesion. <strong>Conclusion</strong>: Intracanal medication based on calcium hydroxide improved the bond strength of AHPlus to dentin walls, regardless of the EDTA protocol.</p><p><strong>Keywords</strong></p><p>Calcium hydroxide; EDTA; Dentin.</p>

Effects of calcium hydroxide intracanal medicament on push‐out bond strength of endodontic sealers: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…However, the heterogeneity between the studies was high ( I 2 = 90%; p < 0.00001). When the heterogeneous studies (outlying studies with results that conflict with the rest of the studies) were removed from the model, 24–26,28 the heterogeneity decreased to I 2 = 41% with p = 0.12; and hence, the fixed‐effect model was used (Figure 3). The difference of the residual studies was also non‐significant (SMD = −0.16; 95% CI = −0.39, 0.06; p = 0.14).…”

“…Studies on the effect of intracanal medicaments including CH on push‐out bond strength of sealers have reported contradictory results 2,5,6,14,16–38 . While some studies claimed a negative influence of CH intracanal medicament on the bond strength of the sealers, 28,29,33,39 many others reported no any significant effect, 2,14,16,17,21,24,27,30,34,35,37,40 and some even reported positive effect 22,25,31,32,38 . Based on the available data, it seems that the effect of CH medicament on the on push‐out bond strength of sealers is still debatable.…”

“…2,5,6,14, While some studies claimed a negative influence of CH intracanal medicament on the bond strength of the sealers, 28,29,33,39 many others reported no any significant effect, 2,14,16,17,21,24,27,30,34,35,37,40 and some even reported positive effect. 22,25,31,32,38 Based on the available data, it seems that the effect of CH medicament on the on push-out bond strength of sealers is still debatable. To the best of our knowledge, no systematic review has been published for the available evidence regarding the effect of CH intracanal medicament on the push-out bond strength of endodontic sealers.…”

Untitled

“…This might be related to the inability to remove nano-silver gel with a resinous sticky form from the root dentin walls, especially at the apical third which may be interpreted by the findings of Balvedi et al, 2010 [64] , where the circulation volume of the solution of irrigation was lower than at the coronal and middle thirds. However, Camargo et al, 2016 [65] found that no statistically significant difference was evident in the efficiency of the removal of medicaments in the three portions of the root canal (apical, middle, and coronal third). This discrepancy between the studies might have caused by various methodological variations including duration of irrigation and the amount of irrigants used, various approaches of intracanal removal, period of storage, various thickness of the section of root, and size of plunger used during the push out bond test procedures.…”