{"title":"三种树脂基根管封闭剂物理性能的比较:体外研究。","authors":"Pegah Sarraf, Sholeh Ghabraei, Zahra Mohammadi, Faranak Noori, Nazanin Chitsaz","doi":"10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"20 ","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/f1/FID-20-34.PMC10591020.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Physical Properties of Three Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers: An In-Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Pegah Sarraf, Sholeh Ghabraei, Zahra Mohammadi, Faranak Noori, Nazanin Chitsaz\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/f1/FID-20-34.PMC10591020.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of the Physical Properties of Three Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers: An In-Vitro Study.
Objectives: This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. Materials and Methods: Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. Results: The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. Conclusion: The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.