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

Q3 Dentistry Endodontology Pub Date : 2024-03-16 DOI:10.4103/endo.endo_169_23
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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
使用扫描电子显微镜评估三氧化二铝矿物聚合体 Fillapex、EndoSequence BC 和 AH Plus 封闭剂的牙本质壁适应能力:体外研究
本研究使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)评估了不同根管封闭剂(三氧化物矿物聚合体 Fillapex [MTA]、EndoSequence BC [ESBC] Sealer 和 AH Plus)的牙本质壁适应能力。 选取 45 颗拔出的单根人类上颌门牙,将其分为三个等量组(n = 15)。使用 15 号 K 型锉确定工作长度。使用旋转镍钛系统以 250 转/分的转速制备 30/0.06 或 40/0.06 号锉,用 17% 乙二胺四乙酸、3% NaOCl 和生理盐水冲洗,并用纸点干燥。使用单锥体技术和适当的封闭剂,用古塔波胶锥体钝化制备好的根管。将标本保存在 37°C 的生理盐水中 48 小时,并使用扫描电镜进行评估。 非配对 t 检验、单因素方差分析和事后检验验证了组间差异,并认为差异显著(α = 5%)。 没有一个试样显示出无间隙界面。MTAF 和 ESBC 之间的间隙比较未显示出任何统计学意义上的显著差异(冠状 [P = 0.9757]、中间 [P = 0.5464] 和顶端 [P = 0.2136] 三分之一)。然而,与 MTAF 和 ESBC 相比,用 AH Plus 填充的根管中封药和牙本质壁界面处发现的间隙在统计学上有极其显著的差异(P < 0.0001)。 用 MTAF 和 ESBC 密封剂封固的标本在 SEM 分析中显示的间隙比用 AH Plus 填充的标本小。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Endodontology
Endodontology Medicine-Anatomy
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊最新文献
Comparative evaluation of the clinical and radiographic success of regenerative endodontic procedures in immature versus mature permanent incisors with apical periodontitis: A prospective observational study Sealing efficacy of various rubber dam barrier materials used for isolation procedures: A randomized controlled trial Evaluation of fracture resistance of radicular dentin treated with nanochitosan-loaded calcium hydroxide and nanographene-loaded calcium hydroxide, when used as intracanal medicament: An in vitro study Fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars using indirect and direct composite onlays: A comparative study Effect of bonding pericervical dentin with reinforcing materials on strength of root-filled mandibular single-canal premolars: An in vitro study
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1