Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of the Sealer/Dentine Interface of Two Sealers Using Two Protocols of Irrigation

Gyulbenkiyan, Elvira; Gusiyska, Angela; Vassileva, Radosveta; Dyulgerova, Elena

doi:10.5272/jimab.2020261.2887

Cited by 8 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Out of the 24 studies included, eight were from India, 16 , 17 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 two from Iran, 12 , 27 two from Brazil, 28 , 29 two from Thailand, 30 , 31 one study each from Egypt, 13 Saudi Arabia, 32 Lebanon, 33 Turkey, 14 Austria, 15 China, 34 United Arab Emirates, 35 Germany, 36 and Bulgaria. 37 All the studies were conducted in-vitro with a sample size ranging from 10 to 26. The included teeth had a straight canal in 11 studies, 12 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 38 oval in one study 14 and round in two studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 37 All the studies were conducted in-vitro with a sample size ranging from 10 to 26. The included teeth had a straight canal in 11 studies, 12 , 16 , 17 , 21 , 24 , 25 , 30 , 32 , 36 , 37 , 38 oval in one study 14 and round in two studies. 15 , 35 Manual K-files were used for chemo-mechanical preparation in two studies, 16 , 24 and rotary file systems were used in 22 studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…15 , 35 Manual K-files were used for chemo-mechanical preparation in two studies, 16 , 24 and rotary file systems were used in 22 studies. Single cone obturation was performed in 10 studies 13 , 14 , 22 , 25 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 and a conventional technique (continuous wave compaction, lateral condensation, vertical condensation)was adopted in 13 studies. The outcome measured was, microleakage in 18 studies using a scanning electron microscope, stereomicroscope, confocal laser scanning microscope, bacterial penetration, bacterial leakage, root canal filling materials and voids percentage, dentinal tubule penetration, and filling quality, sealing ability and apical sealing ability.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Rekha¹,

Kavitha²,

Ramanarayanan³

et al. 2023

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Rekha¹,

Kavitha²,

Ramanarayanan³

et al. 2023

Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Moreover, the moisture environment of the tooth has an influence on the adhesion between the bioceramic sealers and root canal dentin. These sealers are characterized by their potential bio-active properties, where calcium hydroxide and hydroxyapatite are formed once the sealer contacts water, resulting in a high alkaline pH that activates and initiates the expression of alkaline phosphatase, favoring the formation of mineralized tissue and possessing an antibacterial effect [12][13][14] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An resin epoxy-based sealer was used in this study because it is characterized by its good adherence to the root canal dentin, outstanding biocompatibility and low risk of unfavorable postoperative inflammatory reactions 12 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of two calcium silicate based sealers and a resin epoxy-based sealer through scanning electron microscopy and bond strength

Abdelrahman

hassan

2021

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: this study aimed to compare the sealing ability of two types of commercially available calcium silicate bioceramic based root canal sealers and a resin based root canal sealer. Methods: Twenty one single-rooted teeth were used, samples (n= 21) were randomly divided into three groups according to the sealer used (group A; ADSEAL, group B; Wellroot, group C; Ceraseal). Roots were then cleaved longitudinally in the labiolingual direction; all samples were then sectioned at three, six, and nine mm from the root tip. The penetration of sealers into the dentinal tubules was examined at 1000x with a scanning electron microscope. Data were tested for normality using Shapiro Wilk test. ANOVA test was used for analyzing normally distributed data followed by Bonferroni post hoc test for pair-wise comparison. Significance level p≤0.001. Results: groups B and C showed better sealing ability than group A in all the three sections. The coronal section showed higher sealing ability than the middle section followed by the apical section in the three tested groups. Conclusion: it can be concluded that both calcium silicate-based sealers had better sealing ability and higher bond strength than the resin epoxy- based sealer.

show abstract

The comparative of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle versus ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the smear layer removal: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of in vitro study

İlhan,

Cakici,

Cakici

2023

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this systematic review of meta‐analysis was to compare the effectiveness of removing the smearing layer using EDTA versus Chitosan (Ch) and Chitosan nanoparticles (Ch‐NPs). A search was performed in four electronic databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane). The included studies were assessed by two reviewers using Joanna Briggs Institute's critical appraisal checklist for the quasi‐experimental studies. Outcomes obtained by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and conventional methods were presented as standardized mean differences alongside 95% confidence intervals. Seven investigations employed 212 single‐root teeth. In the apical section (p = .317, 95% CI = −0.820 to 0.266, Tau2 = 0.387), middle segment (p = .914, 95% CI = −1.019 to 0.912, Tau2 = 1.027), and coronal segment (p = .277, 95% CI = −1.008 to 0.289, Tau2 = 0.378). This meta‐analysis found no difference between Ch, Ch‐NPs, and EDTA in removing the smear layer in the three segments. This systematic review is designed to show evidence related to the PICO question, in which our outcome is smear layer removal and not the clinical success of such a treatment.Research Highlights The study aimed to compare the effectiveness of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles with ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in removing the smear layer, a layer of debris and organic material on the tooth surface, through a systematic review and meta‐analysis. The removal of the smear layer is crucial for successful dental treatments, as it enhances the adhesion of restorative materials and improves the penetration of antimicrobial agents into dentinal tubules. The researchers conducted a systematic review and meta‐analysis, searching various databases of electron microscopy results for relevant in vitro studies comparing the effects of chitosan or chitosan nanoparticles with EDTA on smear layer removal. The results encourage further exploration of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticles for clinical use in dentistry, while considering their specific applications and long‐term effects.

show abstract

Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of the Sealer/Dentine Interface of Two Sealers Using Two Protocols of Irrigation

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis

Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis

A comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of two calcium silicate based sealers and a resin epoxy-based sealer through scanning electron microscopy and bond strength

The comparative of chitosan and chitosan nanoparticle versus ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the smear layer removal: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About