Push-Out Bond Strength, Characterization, and Ion Release of Premixed and Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealers with or without Gutta-Percha

Retana-Lobo, Cristina; Tanomaru‐Filho, Mário; Guerreiro-Tanomaru, Juliane Maria; Benavides-García, Marianella; Hernández-Meza, Erick; Reyes-Carmona, Jessie

doi:10.1155/2021/6617930

Cited by 21 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The secondary aim of this study was to assess the failure modes of tested endodontic sealers. Regarding the mode of failures, EDS and EBCS predominantly reported cohesive failure modes (72.22% and 66.66%), consistent with previously reported findings [ 34 , 35 ]. BRS exhibited adhesive (63.15%) and cohesive (26.31%) failure modes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…However, conflicting results were reported by Retana-Lobo et al [ 35 ] who outlined better results for BRS (3.522 MPa) compared to EBCS (3.223 MPa) when root canal obturation was performed without GP, but with no significant statistical difference when the canal was obturated with sealer and GP cone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The present study revealed that the push-out bond strengths of EDS and gutta-percha were significantly superior to the other sealers. All three calcium silicate-based sealers (EBCS, EDS, and BRS) scored significantly higher than RSSE, probably due to intrafibrillar apatite deposition [ 21 , 34 , 35 ]. The differences in chemical composition of the bioceramic sealers may influence their interaction with the root dentin, having a significant impact on their adhesion [ 19 , 36 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) has been deployed in previous studies to highlight the sealer characterization, to analyze the sealer–dentin interface and sealer’s penetration into dentinal tubules [ 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 ]. In similar studies, a comparable number of samples were selected for SEM investigation [ 35 ]. In our study, SEM examination indicated that both EDS and EBCS presented the same microstructure, in terms of both the dentin–sealer interface and the inner mass.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Four Different Root Canal Sealers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purposes of the study were to evaluate the influence of the sealer’s chemical composition on the interfacial strength between root canal dentin and root filling material, for two different classes of endodontic sealers, and to assess their failure modes. Methods: Forty extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into four groups using the following endodontic sealers: RealSeal SE and Resilon (RSSE); EndoSequence BC sealer and BC Point (EBCS); Endoseal MTA and gutta-percha (EDS); Bioroot RCS and gutta-percha (BRS). Teeth were embedded in acrylic resin, and the roots were sectioned horizontally into 1 mm slices. For each slice, the perimeter was measured. A push-out test was performed using an Instron universal testing machine. For each sample, bond strength was calculated. Specimens were examined by SEM investigation in order to analyze the dentin–sealer–core interface. Results were assessed using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey and Bonferroni test. Results: Statistical analysis revealed that EDS and gutta-percha had significantly higher resistance to dislodgement compared to the other three groups (p < 0.05). EBCS and BC Point showed significantly greater push-out bond strength values compared to RSSE and Resilon (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Bioceramic endodontic sealers showed a higher bond strength to root dentin than methacrylate resin-based endodontic sealer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Four Different Root Canal Sealers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Materials incorporating agents that possess bioactivity and promote remineralization of the tooth by releasing calcium, phosphate, and fluoride ions are examples of the trend to develop aesthetic restoratives with the ability to inhibit secondary caries (4). Previous studies reported that bioactive materials release some components in the medium and trigger mineral deposition, which leads to the formation of an interfacial layer with tag-like structures in the intratubular dentin, suggesting that this biomineralization process could minimize leakage (7) and positively influence the bond strength of the materials (25,26). This micromechanical interaction induced by calcium silicate biomaterials improves the adhesion between materials and dentin (18,(25)(26)(27).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomechanical and Chemical Behavior of Various Bioactive Materials in Class II Restorations

Barrantes

Rojas²

2022

Odovtos - Int J Dent Sc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the biomechanical and chemical behavior of various bioactive materials in class II MOD restorations. Forty-eight standardized class II MOD cavities were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth. The specimens were divided into four groups according to the restorative material: Group 1 (Filtek™ Z350 XT), Group 2 (Biodentine™ as a liner, and then restored with Filtek™ Z350 XT), Group 3 (Cention N™), and Group 4 (Activa™ Bioactive-Restorative). The samples were tested for fracture resistance by subjecting them to a compressive load in a Universal testing Machine. The failure modes of each specimen were evaluated. The alkalinizing potential and calcium ion release of the materials were measured. SEM-EDAX analyses were also performed for all materials. Data were analyzed using ANOVA and post hoc Tukey test (p<0.05). Group 1 showed the higher fracture resistance (p<0.05). Group 3 had greater fracture resistance values but no statistical difference from Group 4. Biodentine™ showed greater biomineralization potential. Class II MOD restorations of Group 1 displayed the higher fracture resistance; however, it was highly associated with catastrophic failure. Conversely, Biodentine™ presented a more significant bioactivity potential, and its use, as in Group 2, promoted the most favorable failure mode.

show abstract

Comparison of push‐out bond strength of endodontic sealers after root canal drying with different techniques

Sarrafan

Soleymani

Chenari

et al. 2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives An ideal endodontic sealer should bond to both dentin and root‐filling material. This study aimed to assess the push‐out bond strength (PBS) of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)‐Fillapex, Endoseal MTA, AH26, and Sure‐Seal Root to root dentin after root canal drying with different techniques. Materials and Methods This in vitro study was conducted on 160 extracted mandibular premolars. After root canal preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into four groups ( n = 40) of drying with ethanol, paper point, air vacuum, and control (wet canal). Each group was divided into four subgroups ( n = 10) for use of AH26, Sure‐Seal Root, MTA‐Fillapex, and Endoseal MTA sealers. The mean PBS was measured by a universal testing machine. The mode of failure was determined under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed by the Kruskal–Wallis and Games–Howell tests. Results The maximum mean PBS was equally recorded in ethanol and paper point groups, and was significantly higher than that of control and air vacuum groups ( p < .001). In the use of AH26 sealer, the mean PBS in drying with ethanol was significantly higher than all other methods ( p < .05). The mean PBS in drying with a paper point was also significantly higher compared with control and air vacuum methods ( p < .05). In the use of Sure‐Seal, the mean PBS in drying with a paper point was significantly higher than other methods ( p < .05). The mean PBS in drying with ethanol was significantly higher than that in control and air vacuum methods ( p < .001). In the use of MTA‐Fillapex and Endoseal‐MTA, the technique of drying had no significant effect on PBS. Adhesive and mixed failures were the most common in all drying groups. Conclusions Drying with ethanol and paper point enhanced the PBS of sealers to root dentin.

show abstract

Push-Out Bond Strength, Characterization, and Ion Release of Premixed and Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealers with or without Gutta-Percha

Cited by 21 publications

References 34 publications

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Four Different Root Canal Sealers

Evaluation of Bond Strength of Four Different Root Canal Sealers

Biomechanical and Chemical Behavior of Various Bioactive Materials in Class II Restorations

Comparison of push‐out bond strength of endodontic sealers after root canal drying with different techniques

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About