Evaluation of the dentinal wall adaptation ability of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Fillapex, EndoSequence BC, and AH Plus sealers using Scanning Electron Microscope: An in vitro study
Pradipkumar R. Damor, R. Tewari, S. Mishra, S. Andrabi
{"title":"Evaluation of the dentinal wall adaptation ability of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate Fillapex, EndoSequence BC, and AH Plus sealers using Scanning Electron Microscope: An in vitro study","authors":"Pradipkumar R. Damor, R. Tewari, S. Mishra, S. Andrabi","doi":"10.4103/endo.endo_169_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n \n \n The present study was conducted to evaluate the dentinal wall adaptation ability of different root canal sealers (mineral trioxide aggregate Fillapex [MTA], EndoSequence BC [ESBC] Sealer, and AH Plus) using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).\n \n \n \n Forty-five extracted single-rooted human maxillary incisor teeth were selected and divided into three equal groups (n = 15). Working length was established using a #15 K-type file. Canals were prepared with rotary Ni–Ti system to size 30/0.06 or 40/0.06 file using endomotor at 250 rpm, irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 3% NaOCl, and normal saline solution, and dried with paper points. Prepared canals were obturated with gutta-percha cones using the single-cone technique and appropriate sealers. Specimens were stored in saline solution at 37°C for 48 h and evaluated using a SEM.\n \n \n \n Unpaired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests verified the differences between groups and were considered significant at alpha = 5%.\n \n \n \n None of the specimens showed a gap-free interface. Gaps compared between MTAF and ESBC did not show any statistically significant differences (coronal [P = 0.9757], middle [P = 0.5464], and apical [P = 0.2136] thirds). However, gaps found at the interface of sealer and dentinal wall in root canals filled with AH Plus showed extremely statistically significant differences when compared with MTAF and ESBC (P < 0.0001).\n \n \n \n Specimens obturated with MTAF and ESBC Sealer showed smaller gaps on SEM analysis than specimens filled with AH Plus.\n","PeriodicalId":11607,"journal":{"name":"Endodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Endodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/endo.endo_169_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
The present study was conducted to evaluate the dentinal wall adaptation ability of different root canal sealers (mineral trioxide aggregate Fillapex [MTA], EndoSequence BC [ESBC] Sealer, and AH Plus) using a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Forty-five extracted single-rooted human maxillary incisor teeth were selected and divided into three equal groups (n = 15). Working length was established using a #15 K-type file. Canals were prepared with rotary Ni–Ti system to size 30/0.06 or 40/0.06 file using endomotor at 250 rpm, irrigated with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, 3% NaOCl, and normal saline solution, and dried with paper points. Prepared canals were obturated with gutta-percha cones using the single-cone technique and appropriate sealers. Specimens were stored in saline solution at 37°C for 48 h and evaluated using a SEM.
Unpaired t-test, one-way analysis of variance, and post-hoc tests verified the differences between groups and were considered significant at alpha = 5%.
None of the specimens showed a gap-free interface. Gaps compared between MTAF and ESBC did not show any statistically significant differences (coronal [P = 0.9757], middle [P = 0.5464], and apical [P = 0.2136] thirds). However, gaps found at the interface of sealer and dentinal wall in root canals filled with AH Plus showed extremely statistically significant differences when compared with MTAF and ESBC (P < 0.0001).
Specimens obturated with MTAF and ESBC Sealer showed smaller gaps on SEM analysis than specimens filled with AH Plus.