Evaluation of push-out bond strength, dentinal tubule penetration and adhesive pattern of bio-ceramic and epoxy resin-based root canal sealers.
Journal
PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Titre abrégé: PLoS One
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101285081
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
2023
2023
Historique:
received:
05
09
2023
accepted:
24
10
2023
medline:
15
11
2023
pubmed:
13
11
2023
entrez:
13
11
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Root canal sealing materials play a crucial role in an endodontic procedure by forming a bond between the dentinal walls and the gutta-percha. The current study aims to analyse the dentinal tubule penetration and adhesive pattern, including the push-out bond strength of six commercially available root canal sealers. Eighty-four mandibular first premolars were split into seven groups (and n = 12), Group 1: Dia-Root, Group 2: One-Fil, Group 3: BioRoot RCS, Group 4: AH Plus, Group 5: CeraSeal, Group 6: iRoot SP, Group 7: GP without sealer (control). Two groups were made, one for dentinal tubule penetration and the other for push-out bond strength; the total sample size was one hundred sixty-eight. Root canal treatment was performed using a method called the crown down technique, and for obturation, the single cone technique was used. A confocal laser scanning microscope (Leica, Microsystem Heidel GmbH, Version 2.00 build 0585, Germany) was used to evaluate dentinal tubule penetration, and Universal Testing Machine was utilised to measure the push-out bond strength (Shimadzu, Japan) using a plunger size of 0.4 mm and speed of 1mm/min. Finally, the adhesive pattern of the sealers was analysed by HIROX digital microscope (KH-7700). Statistical analysis was carried out by a one-way Anova test, Dunnet's T3 test, and Chi-square test. Highest dentinal tubule penetration was noticed with One-Fil (p<0.05), followed by iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus, Dia-Root also, the most negligible value was recorded for BioRoot RCS. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS (p<0.05) demonstrated the greater value of mean push-out bond strength, followed by One-fil, iRoot SP, CeraSeal, AH Plus and Dia-Root. Regarding adhesive pattern, most of the samples were classified as type 3 and type 4 which implies greater sealing ability and better adherence to the dentinal wall. However, BioRoot RCS revealed the most type 4 (p<0.05), followed by AH Plus, One-Fil, CeraSeal and Dia-Root. The highest dentinal tubule penetration was shown by One-Fil compared to other groups. Meanwhile, BioRoot RCS had greater push-out bond strength and more adhesive pattern than other tested materials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37956149
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0294076
pii: PONE-D-23-28280
pmc: PMC10642786
doi:
Substances chimiques
epoxy resin-based root canal sealer
0
iRoot SP
0
Adhesives
0
Root Canal Filling Materials
0
Epoxy Resins
0
Gutta-Percha
9000-32-2
Banques de données
Dryad
['10.5061/dryad.83bk3j9zd']
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e0294076Commentaires et corrections
Type : ErratumIn
Informations de copyright
Copyright: © 2023 Karobari et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Références
J Dent Sci. 2018 Mar;13(1):54-59
pubmed: 30895095
Scanning. 2021 Oct 14;2021:8726388
pubmed: 34737843
Int J Biomater. 2016;2016:9753210
pubmed: 27242904
J Endod. 2016 Apr;42(4):632-6
pubmed: 26898564
Int Endod J. 2007 Nov;40(11):873-81
pubmed: 17764458
Odontology. 2019 Apr;107(2):231-236
pubmed: 30276580
Int Endod J. 2001 Mar;34(2):120-32
pubmed: 11307260
J Endod. 1992 Dec;18(12):625-7
pubmed: 1298804
J Endod. 2018 Mar;44(3):501-505
pubmed: 29254816
J Istanb Univ Fac Dent. 2017 Dec 02;51(3 Suppl 1):S128-S137
pubmed: 29354316
Head Face Med. 2018 Aug 20;14(1):13
pubmed: 30126425
Eur J Oral Sci. 2004 Aug;112(4):353-61
pubmed: 15279655
J Endod. 2007 Aug;33(8):944-7
pubmed: 17878079
J Endod. 2016 Nov;42(11):1656-1659
pubmed: 27641946
Clin Oral Investig. 2019 Apr;23(4):1871-1876
pubmed: 30225679
Eur Endod J. 2021 Apr 22;:
pubmed: 34047295
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018 Fall;12(4):294-298
pubmed: 30774797
Odontology. 2021 Jan;109(1):149-156
pubmed: 32623538
Int Endod J. 2008 Mar;41(3):219-26
pubmed: 18005042
J Endod. 2017 Apr;43(4):633-637
pubmed: 28216267
Scanning. 2021 May 06;2021:6617930
pubmed: 34040690
J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Oct 01;9(10):e1189-e1194
pubmed: 29167707
Lasers Surg Med. 2016 Jan;48(1):70-6
pubmed: 26774730
Polymers (Basel). 2023 Mar 06;15(5):
pubmed: 36904558
Materials (Basel). 2019 Feb 11;12(3):
pubmed: 30754612
Int Endod J. 2006 Aug;39(8):643-7
pubmed: 16872459
J Endod. 2013 May;39(5):669-73
pubmed: 23611388
Dent J (Basel). 2018 Sep 03;6(3):
pubmed: 30177607
PLoS One. 2019 Oct 17;14(10):e0223575
pubmed: 31622387
J Clin Exp Dent. 2017 Oct 01;9(10):e1249-e1255
pubmed: 29167717
J Endod. 2009 Apr;35(4):475-80
pubmed: 19345790
J Dent Sci. 2023 Apr;18(2):604-612
pubmed: 37021270
J Dent Res. 2012 May;91(5):454-9
pubmed: 22436906
J Endod. 2007 Jul;33(7):856-8
pubmed: 17804329