The Effects of Two Different Self-Adjusting File Working Times and Three Different Chelating Agents on the Root Canal Filling Bond Strength

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate the effects of two different self-adjusting file (SAF) working times and three different chelating agents on the push-out bond strength of root canal fillings in oval root canals. Materials and Methods: Eighty mandibular premolars were selected and distributed into 8 groups (n=10): 4 min SAF (G1), 4 min SAF + 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (G2), 4 min SAF + 10% citric acid (CA) (G3), 4 min SAF + 1% peracetic acid (PAA) (G4), 6 min SAF (G5), 6 min SAF + 17% EDTA (G6), 6 min SAF + 10% CA (G7), and 6 min SAF + 1% PAA (G8). The root canals were filled using guttapercha and AH Plus root canal sealer, and the teeth were prepared for the push-out assessments using 1.0 mm thick root slices. Loading was performed with a universal testing machine at a speed of 0.5 mm/min; and then, collected data were analyzed statistically (α=0.05). Results: While the different chelating agents significantly affected the push-out bond strength of the root canal filling (p<0.05), the different SAF working times did not (p>0.05). There were no significant differences among the groups in the apical and middle thirds of the roots (p>0.05). In the coronal thirds, G6 and G8 indicated significantly greater bond strength values than G1 and G5 (p<0.05). Conclusion: According to the results, the 4 and 6 min SAF working times did not affect the bond strength of the root canal filling. PAA and EDTA can be recommended for root canal irrigation after SAF usage.

Influence of the use of chelating agents as final irrigant on the push‐out bond strength of epoxy resin‐based root canal sealers: A systematic review

“…Most studies presented standardisation of specimen selection (single root canal) (28,30,40), presenting a low risk of bias in this domain; Nunes et al . (29) and Aslan & Şene (36) did not report whether they used single root canal specimens and were classified as having unclear risk of bias in this domain. Only one study informed that the experimental procedure was performed by a single operator (36) being classified as ‘low risk’ in this domain.…”

“…Except for two studies that used distilled water (30,38), all the others used NaOCl during instrumentation. The concentrations of NaOCl ranged from 1% (28,29,39) to 5.25% (34–36). The time of action of the irrigant ranged from 1 (40) to 6 min (36), and the volume from 1 ml (28) to 5 ml (29,40) at each instrument change.…”

“…The concentrations of NaOCl ranged from 1% (28,29,39) to 5.25% (34–36). The time of action of the irrigant ranged from 1 (40) to 6 min (36), and the volume from 1 ml (28) to 5 ml (29,40) at each instrument change. Aslan & Şener (36) used a flowing rate of 6 ml min −1 in the 4 min groups and 4 ml min −1 in the 6 min groups.…”

“…The time of action of the irrigant ranged from 1 (40) to 6 min (36), and the volume from 1 ml (28) to 5 ml (29,40) at each instrument change. Aslan & Şener (36) used a flowing rate of 6 ml min −1 in the 4 min groups and 4 ml min −1 in the 6 min groups. One study did not indicate the total volume of irrigant used (35), and three studies did not mention the time of action (33,34,37).…”

“…Qmix ® and Smear Clear ® was tested in only one study (40) as well as 7% maleic acid (30). REDTA and citric acid were tested in two studies (36,37). Except for two studies (40) that used NaOCl in at least one tested group, all the others used distilled water after chelating solution.…”