Sealing ability of super EBA and Dyract as root‐end fillings: a study in vitro

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare, in vitro, the sealing ability of Super EBA and a compomer, Dyract, as root-end filling materials. Forty-eight single-rooted human teeth were cleaned, shaped and obturated with gutta-percha. The root apices were resected and root-end cavities were prepared. Twenty teeth were retrofilled with Super EBA and Dyract; eight teeth served as positive and negative controls. Half of the teeth in each group were immersed in basic fuschin for 4 weeks, the other half for 12 weeks. The teeth were then embedded in resin, sectioned, and the maximum extent of dye penetration measured. Statistical analysis (ANOVA) did not reveal a significant difference between the two materials at 4 weeks. At 12 weeks, the extent of dye penetration was statistically significant with Super EBA leaking more than Dyract (P = 0.002). Moreover, the extent of the dye penetration was statistically significantly different for Super EBA between the 4- and 12-week groups (P = 0), whereas no such difference was found for Dyract. Thus, the sealing ability of Dyract was found to be better than Super EBA at 12 weeks.

Surgical repair of root and tooth perforations

“…When used to repair root perforations and as an adjunct to guided tissue regeneration, results have been favorable in isolated case reports (25, 113, 317–319). When used as root‐end filling materials in vitro , leakage assessments of Geristore and Dyract indicate that they leak less than IRM, amalgam or Super EBA (320, 321). Compared with MTA root‐end fillings, Geristore has a similar leakage pattern (322).…”

Margınal ıntegrıty of fıve dıfferent root sealers ın retrograde fıllıng followıng apıcoectomy: An ın vıtro analysıs wıth scannıng electron mıcroscope and mıcro-radıography

“…In the literature, it has been proclaimed that microleakage is not completely inhibited with amalgam, zinc oxide eugenol cement or glass-ionomer cement. [5][6][7] Based on the results of the clinical and histological studies, it has been widely reported that ProRoot ® MTA stands out as the gold standard retrofilling material for apical seal 27 due to its superior charactheristics such as biocompatibility, nontoxicity, osteoinduction and cementogenesis 28 It has been suggested that, MTA provides a very good seal, has excellent marginal adaptation, maintains a high pH for a long period of time, and appears to induce a favorable tissue response. 29 In addition, Maltezos et al 30 have compared the sealing properties of Resilon, ProRoot ® MTA, and Super-EBA as root-end filling material and stated that ProRoot ® MTA presents significantly less leakage than that with amalgam, gutta-percha and zinc oxide eugenol in a dye leakage test and showed significantly less leakage than reinforced zinc oxide eugenol cement when evaluated using a bacterial leakage system.…”

“…It should be biocompatible and precisely seal the apical region of the root canal to prevent bacterial leakage from the canal to the periapical tissues vice versa. [4][5][6][7] There are variety of materials and systems for retrofilling as;…”