Push-out Bond Strength of Injectable Pozzolan-based Root Canal Sealer

Silva, Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal; Carvalho, Nancy Kudsi; Prado, Marina Carvalho; Zanon, Mayara; Senna, Plínio Mendes; Souza, Erick Miranda; De‐Deus, Gustavo

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.08.009

Cited by 56 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, this method represents a reliable and more direct result between the sealer and dentine interface and, at the same time, provides better control over the type of failure mode, because the test is not influenced by the resilience of gutta‐percha (Silva et al . , Carvalho et al . , Prado et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Silva et al . , Carvalho et al . ), allowing the evaluation of the impact of the dentinal substrate at different levels of bonding strength to dentine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These tests are usually performed after cross-sectioning root filled teeth in various root regions (Fisher et al 2007, De-Deus et al 2009). Although this is the most common method, it underscores a substantial drawback of creating a reliable baseline as a result of the variable morphology of the dentinal substrate and the intricate anatomy that challenge the standardization of human teeth samples (Scelza et al 2015, Silva et al 2016, Carvalho et al 2017. For this reason, a recent standard-hole method that increases the internal validity of push-out models has been proposed (Scelza et al 2015, Silva et al 2016, Carvalho et al 2017, Prado et al 2018.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bovine teeth can reliably substitute human dentine in an intra‐tooth push‐out bond strength model?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To investigate the reliability of using bovine teeth as an alternative to human teeth in an intra‐tooth push‐out model by comparing the bond strength of three root canal sealers in both tooth substrates. Methodology From human and bovine incisors (12 per group), one 1‐mm disc was obtained from each root. On each disc, three standard 0.8‐mm‐diameter holes were drilled through the dentine. After irrigation, the holes were filled with one of three root canal sealers: AH Plus, MTA Fillapex or Total Fill BC Sealer. Tooth slices were kept in contact with sterile gauze moistened in PBS solution (pH = 7.2) for 7 days at 37 °C, and finally, a push‐out load was applied until sealer dislocation. The bonded interface area was calculated to obtain data in MPa. The push‐out data for each sealer and the overall push‐out data for human and bovine teeth were compared (Mann–Whitney U). Kruskal–Wallis was used to study the sealers behaviour at each of the dental substrates. Multiple comparisons were performed using Mann–Whitney U after Bonferroni correction (P < 0.05). Results Dentine substrate did not influence the push‐out of either individual sealers or overall sealers tested (Mann–Whitney U, P > 0.05). In both human and bovine samples, AH Plus performed better than BC Sealer and MTA Fillapex, whilst BC Sealer also provided a superior push‐out compared to MTA Fillapex (Mann–Whitney U, P < 0.05). Conclusion When using an intra‐tooth model, bovine teeth did not significantly influence the bond strength of sealers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…, Silva et al . , Carvalho et al . ), allowing the evaluation of the impact of the dentinal substrate at different levels of bonding strength to dentine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bovine teeth can reliably substitute human dentine in an intra‐tooth push‐out bond strength model?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, this could be related to higher lateral condensation forces or due to the dentin structure in these parts of the roots (20). Furthermore, MTA Fillapex has been correlated to a higher ratio of salicylate resin compared to MTA, which affects the chemical reaction among these components and explains the extended setting time of this material (21). This leads to dimensional changes and formation of gaps between root canal areas and filling materials (21).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another study showed no difference between the bond strength values of AH Plus and MTA Fillapex (28). Thus, considering MTA Fillapex, a paste-topaste sealer, two chemical reactions have been identified as being responsible for the setting and physical-mechanical properties of this material: the progressive hydration of orthosilicate ions occurs followed by a reaction between MTA and salicylate resin (21,27). This allows the formation of an ionic polymer containing calcium silicate particles, which reacts with water (7,29).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%