Retreatability of calcium silicate‐based root canal sealer using reciprocating instrumentation with different irrigation activation techniques in single‐rooted canals

ABSTRACTIntroduction: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess the pH values of selected calcium-silicate root canal sealers in comparison with AH Plus resin-based root canal sealer.Materials and methods: Six root canal sealers were included in this study: BioRoot RCS (Septodont, France), GuttaFlow bioseal (Coltėne/Whaledent, Switzerland), MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Brazil), Total Fill BC Sealer (FKG, Switzerland), Well-Root ST (Vericom, Korea) and AH Plus (Dentsply, DeTrey, Germany). Materials samples (n = 6) were placed in dishes and immersed in 10 mL of distilled water (pH = 6.8). After 1, 3, 24, 48, 72, 168, 336 and 504 hrs, water pH was determined with a pH meter calibrated with a solution of known pH. Data were statistically analyzed using Student-t test (p < 0.05).Results: There were differences in the water pH between the materials tested. The highest water pHs were exhibited by Total Fill BC Sealer, Well-Root ST and BioRoot RCS (pH ~12), followed by GuttaFlow bioseal (pH ~10.5) and MTA Fillapex (pH ~9). The lowest pH was shown by AH Plus (pH ~8).Conclusions: All calcium-silicate root canal sealers studied are able to elevate the pH level, which could have biological and antimicrobial effects. The AH Plus root canal sealer has poor alkalizing properties.

Download Full-text

Cytotoxicity and the Effect of Temperature on Physical Properties and Chemical Composition of a New Calcium Silicate–based Root Canal Sealer

Journal of Endodontics ◽

10.1016/j.joen.2019.12.009 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 46 (4) ◽

pp. 531-538 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Binwen Chen ◽

Markus Haapasalo ◽

Christophe Mobuchon ◽

Xianyu Li ◽

Jingzhi Ma ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Chemical Composition ◽

Physical Properties ◽

Root Canal ◽

Calcium Silicate ◽

Effect Of Temperature ◽

Root Canal Sealer

Download Full-text

Outcome of Root Canal Treatments Using a New Calcium Silicate Root Canal Sealer: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial

Journal of Clinical Medicine ◽

10.3390/jcm9030782 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 9 (3) ◽

pp. 782 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Angelo Zavattini ◽

Alan Knight ◽

Federico Foschi ◽

Francesco Mannocci

Keyword(s):

Success Rate ◽

Root Canal ◽

Calcium Silicate ◽

Similar Proportion ◽

Fisher Exact Test ◽

Root Canal Sealer ◽

Calcium Silicate Cement ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Single Cone ◽

Ah Plus

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the success rate of root canal treatments undertaken using a calcium silicate root canal sealer in combination with a single cone with non-calcium silicate cement and warm vertical condensation. Methods: 150 necrotic or pulpitic teeth were treated. (REC: 08/H0804/79). Following standardized root canal chemo-debridement. The canals were obturated using warm vertical condensation of gutta-percha and epoxy-based sealer (AH plus) or a calcium silicate sealer (BioRootTM RCS) with a single cone technique. Follow-up assessment was conducted at 12 months using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Results: At 1-year recall, 104 teeth were assessed (51 AH plus, 53 BioRootTM RCS). The success rate using loose criteria for the CBCT images and PA radiographs was respectively 80% and 89% in the AH plus/warm vertical condensation group, 84% and 90% in the BioRootTM RCS/single cone group. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (Fisher exact test p value 0.6099 for the CBCT images). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this non-randomized trial, a calcium silicate cement in combination with single cone resulted in a similar proportion of successful cases compared to warm vertical condensation and epoxy-based sealer.

Download Full-text

The Efficacy of Different Sealer Removal Protocols on the Microtensile Bond Strength of Adhesives to a Bioceramic Sealer-Contaminated Dentin

10.21203/rs.3.rs-448214/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Zeliha Gonca Bek Kürklü ◽

Oğuz Yoldaş

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Root Canal ◽

Calcium Silicate ◽

Single Step ◽

Cavity Surface ◽

Control Group ◽

Root Canal Sealer ◽

Universal Adhesive ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Bond Strengths

Abstract Background: The optimal bonding of adhesives to dentin requires the sealer to be completely removed from dentinal walls. This study compared the efficacy of different sealer removal protocols on the microtensile bond strengths (MTBS) of single step adhesives to a calcium silicate-based bioceramic root canal sealer contaminated dentin. Methods: Standardized box-shaped Class I cavities were prepared in human lower third molars (N=50). All cavities were contaminated with a bioceramic root canal sealer (Endosequence BC Sealer, Brasseler, Savannah, USA), except the control group cavities. For the experimental groups, dentin surfaces were wiped with dry cotton pellets, cotton pellets saturated with water or rinsed with an air water syringe for 5 seconds, or applied aqueous ultrasonic scaler for 5 seconds prior to restoration procedure. All the cavity surface was restored with a one-bottle universal adhesive and composite resin. All the specimens were subjected to both thermocycling and mechanical loading. The restored specimens were sectioned into resin-dentin beams for mictotensile bond strength (Mtbs) evaluation. Additional specimens were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examination of dentin-adhesive interface (N=10).Results: The Mtbs for the 5 groups, the control, dry cotton, wet cotton, water rinse, and ultrasonic rinse group, were 13.42 ± 4.68, 11.96 ± 5.26, 13.03±6.07, 12.73±3.68, and 14.39±4.22 MPa, respectively. No significant difference was found between the mean bond strengths of the groups (p=0.725). In SEM examination no residual sealer was found in any group. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-based bioceramic sealer was removed from the dentin surface with all removal protocols when evaluated with Mtbs after thermal and mechanical cycle tests.

Download Full-text