Evaluation of fracture resistance of roots-filled with various root canal sealers at different time periods

Abstract

Purpose: The reinforcement effect of 3 various root canal sealers (AH 26, MTA Plus sealer and BioRoot RCS) and gutta-percha at different time periods (1 week and 1 month) were evaluated in the present study. Materials and methods: Single-rooted, single-canalled, cracks-free 80 mandibular premolars were decoronated to a length of 13mm. Group PC (positive control, n=10): samples were left unprepared and unfilled. Seventy samples were prepared by using the ProTaper Rotary System up to F4. Group NC (negative control, n=10): samples were left unfilled. Remaining 60 samples were assigned into 3 groups; Group 1: AH 26 + F4 gutta-percha (GP); Group 2: MTA Plus sealer + F4 GP and Group 3: BioRoot RCS + F4 GP. Filled samples were divided into subgroups according to storage time: Samples in Groups 1A, 2A, and 3A were stored for 1 week; while Groups 1B, 2B and 3B were stored for 1 month at 100% humidity to allow the complete setting of the sealers (n=10, for each). A universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min was used for fracture testing. For each specimen, the force at the time of fracture was recorded and the data were analyzed statistically. Results: The highest fracture resistance values were obtained in Group PC, while the lowest values were obtained in Group NC. Groups PC and NC were statistically different from each other and from other groups, regardless of time (p<0.05). Fracture resistance values of Group AH 26/GP were statistically different from MTA Plus sealer/GP (p<0.05) and were statistically similar with BioRoot RCS/GP , irrespective of time. Within group comparisons revealed that there were no statistically differences between samples filled with same sealer at different time periods. Conclusion: Root canal preparation caused decreased fracture resistance. All sealers increased the force values needed to fracture the filled samples compared to unfilled ones. Time factor had no effect on the fracture resistance values.

Physico-Chemical Properties of Calcium-Silicate vs. Resin Based Sealers—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laboratory-Based Studies

“…The main characteristics of the included studies are shown in Table 3 . Ten studies on the adaptation to root canal walls were included [ 30 , 31 , 32 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 ]. In comparison to the RBS, CSBs showed similar values of void volume marginal adaptation in five studies [ 32 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ] whilst at the apical, mid, and coronal thirds, these values were high in three studies [ 31 , 35 , 41 ] and low in one study [ 38 ].…”

“…Four studies on fracture resistance were included [ 36 , 37 , 54 , 56 ] with values (FRV) mentioned in Newton unit and time intervals ranged from one week to a month. CSBs demonstrated similar FRVs when compated to RBS in three studies [ 36 , 37 , 56 ], whilst had superior values in one study [ 54 ].…”

“…Four studies on fracture resistance were included [ 36 , 37 , 54 , 56 ] with values (FRV) mentioned in Newton unit and time intervals ranged from one week to a month. CSBs demonstrated similar FRVs when compated to RBS in three studies [ 36 , 37 , 56 ], whilst had superior values in one study [ 54 ]. Figure 4 exhibits the forest plot of the pooled comparison between the CSBs (n = 120) and RBS (n = 120) demonstrating non-significant standardised mean FRVs ( p = 0.09) favouring the RBS.…”

Intratubular penetration of endodontic sealers depends on the fluorophore used for CLSM assessment

“…Despite this vital behavior, several studies have been published evaluating the dentinal tubule penetration of bioceramic sealers combined with Rhodamine B (Uzunoğlu Özyürek & Aktemur Türker, 2019; Wang et al, 2018). That is the reason why the use of a hydrophobic fluorophore associated with bioceramic sealers is fundamental.…”

“…Moreover, the primary goal is to eliminate empty spaces into the root canal system using biologically compatible materials (Kok et al, 2012). Three‐dimensional root canal obturation must prevent or minimize the reinfection caused by microorganisms' leakage (Uzunoğlu Özyürek & Aktemur Türker, 2019) . Consequently, it must promote periapical healing (Pinheiro, Bramante, & Hussne, 2003).…”