scholarly journals Evaluation of Dissolving Effect of Chloroform on Three Root Canal Sealers: An In Vitro Study

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
Author(s):  
Azah Binti Zainal Abidin ◽  
Azmiera Binti A. Rahman ◽  
Kyaw Mya Htun ◽  
Tin Maw
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Root Canal Sealer ◽  
Original Weight ◽  
Bonferroni Test ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Materials Used ◽  
Endodontic Sealers

<p class="AbstractContent"><strong>Objective</strong>: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the dissolving effect of chloroform on AH 26 (resin-based root canal sealer), Endofill (zinc oxide eugenol-based root canal sealer) and Sealapax (calcium hydroxide-based root canal sealer). Many previous literatures have compared the solubility of several solvents towards gutta percha but very few on endodontic sealers.</p><p class="AbstractContent"><strong>Methods</strong>: The materials used in this experiment apart from the three endodontic sealers are 30 standardized stainless-steel rings, microscopic glass slide, chloroform, acetone, and three decimal digital weighing scales. Thirty standardized stainless steel rings 8mm in diameter and 3mm in height were used for the preparation of sealer specimens and were randomly divided into three experimental groups of ten rings each. Each sealer was then mixed in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and introduced into the stainless-steel rings and was weighed to obtain the initial weight. Each sealer was weighed again after immersion in chloroform. The amount of sealer lost was the difference between this measurement and the original weight of the sealer. The results were tabulated and analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).</p><p class="AbstractContent"><strong>Results</strong>: The ANOVA test showed that there were significant differences existed between the groups. The post-hoc (Bonferroni) test showed that AH26 had significantly greater dissolution than Sealapex. However, there were no significant differences in dissolution between AH26 vs. Endofill and Sealapex vs. Endofill.</p><p class="AbstractContent"><strong>Conclusion:</strong> According to the methodology proposed and based on the results of this study, it may be concluded that AH26 presented the highest dissolution value.</p>

scholarly journals Scanning Accuracy of Bracket Features and Slot Base Angle in Different Bracket Materials by Four Intraoral Scanners: An In Vitro Study

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 365
Author(s):  
Seon-Hee Shin ◽  
Hyung-Seog Yu ◽  
Jung-Yul Cha ◽  
Jae-Sung Kwon ◽  
Chung-Ju Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Sem Images ◽  
Polycrystalline Alumina ◽  
Base Angle ◽  
Accurate Expression ◽  
Dental Model ◽  
Alumina Composite ◽  
The Difference

The accurate expression of bracket prescription is important for successful orthodontic treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of digital scan images of brackets produced by four intraoral scanners (IOSs) when scanning the surface of the dental model attached with different bracket materials. Brackets made from stainless steel, polycrystalline alumina, composite, and composite/stainless steel slot were considered, which have been scanned from four different IOSs (Primescan, Trios, CS3600, and i500). SEM images were used as references. Each bracket axis was set in the reference scan image, and the axis was set identically by superimposing with the IOS image, and then only the brackets were divided and analyzed. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the differences. The difference between the manufacturer’s nominal torque and bracket slot base angle was 0.39 in SEM, 1.96 in Primescan, 2.04 in Trios, and 5.21 in CS3600 (p < 0.001). The parallelism, which is the difference between the upper and lower angles of the slot wall, was 0.48 in SEM, 7.00 in Primescan, 5.52 in Trios, 6.34 in CS3600, and 23.74 in i500 (p < 0.001). This study evaluated the accuracy of the bracket only, and it must be admitted that there is some error in recognizing slots through scanning in general.

scholarly journals Effectiveness of a silicon-based root canal sealer for filling of simulated lateral canals

2007 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-23 ◽  
Author(s):  
João Vicente Baroni Barbizam ◽  
Matheus Souza ◽  
Doglas Cecchin ◽  
Jakob Dabbel
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Root Canal Sealer ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Working Length ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Silicon Based

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the ability of a silicon-based root canal sealer, compared to zinc oxide and eugenol and an epoxy resin-based sealers, for filling of simulated lateral canals. Thirty extracted single-rooted human teeth were selected, conventional access was made and the working length was established 1 mm from the apical foramen. Three simulated lateral canals, one in each root third (coronal, middle and apical) were prepared in both the mesial and distal surfaces of each tooth using a size 15 reamer adapted to a low-speed handpiece. Each root canal was instrumented using ProTaper rotary files up to file F3 at the working length, and then irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl followed by EDTA. The teeth were assigned to 3 groups (n=10), according to the root canal sealer: Roeko Seal (Group 1), Sealer 26 (group 2) and Grossman's sealer (Group 3). Gutta-percha cold lateral condensation technique was performed in all groups. Postoperative radiographs were taken and the images were projected for evaluation of the quality of lateral canal filling. Data were submitted to statistical analysis by Kruskal Wallis test at 5% significance level. The results showed that Grossman's sealer filled a larger number of lateral canals than Roeko Seal (p<0.05) and Sealer 26 (p<0.01). It may be concluded that Roeko Seal silicone-based root canal sealer was not as effective as the Grossman's sealer for filling of simulated lateral canals. The lateral canals localized in the apical third of the root were more difficult to be filled.

scholarly journals Właściwości alkalizujące wybranych krzemianowo-wapniowych uszczelniaczy kanałowych. Badanie in vitro

2018 ◽  
Vol 64 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Przemysław Reszka ◽  
Łukasz Kucharski ◽  
Adam Klimowicz ◽  
Mariusz Lipski
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
Calcium Silicate ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Root Canal Sealer ◽  
Ph Values ◽  
Water Ph ◽  
Ah Plus ◽  
Ph Level ◽  
Root Canal Sealers

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.

scholarly journals Evaluation of sealing abilitiy of mineral trioxide aggregate mixed with propylene glycol as a root canal sealer: A in vitro study

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 216
Author(s):  
AmirArdalan Abdollahi ◽  
AminSalem Milani ◽  
Solmaz Firuzi ◽  
MohammadHosein Soroush Barhaghi ◽  
Shariar Shahi
Keyword(s):  
Propylene Glycol ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
Mineral Trioxide Aggregate ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Vitro Study ◽  
Root Canal Sealer

scholarly journals Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Apical Transportation and Centering Ratio of Protaper and XP-Endo Shaper Niti Rotary Systems in Curved Canals: An in Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is important in an endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: 44 extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and apical curvature of 10° to 30° were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n=22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. CBCT images were captured using Cranex 3D CBCT system before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm from the apex were calculated. Data were analyzed and compared between two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance.Results: The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between two groups regarding transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P<0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P>0.05). The difference between two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P>0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P<0.05). Conclusion:The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

scholarly journals Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of apical transportation and centering ratio of ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper NiTi rotary systems in curved canals: an in vitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasrin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is an important step of endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods Forty-four extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and 10° to 30° apical curvature were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n = 22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The CBCT images were obtained using Cranex 3D CBCT scanner before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm levels from the apex were calculated. Data were compared between the two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance. Results The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between the two groups regarding canal transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P < 0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P > 0.05). The difference between the two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P > 0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P < 0.05). Conclusion The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document