| |
|
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 17
| Issue : 6 | Page : 579-582 |
|
| Evaluation of the apical sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH plus & epiphany: An in vitro study
|
|
|
Suprit Sudhir Pawar, Madhu Ajay Pujar, Saleem Dadapeer Makandar
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Maratha Mandal's Nathajirao, G Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, Belgaum, Karnataka, India
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 14-Jan-2014 |
| Date of Decision | 23-Feb-2014 |
| Date of Acceptance | 04-Oct-2014 |
| Date of Web Publication | 13-Nov-2014 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
Objective: This in vitro study evaluated and compared the microleakage of three sealers; Endosequence bioceramic (BC) sealer, AH Plus and Epiphany.
Materials and Methods: Study was done on 75 extracted human single rooted permanent teeth, which were decoronated and the root canals were instrumented. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups (n = 25) and obturated by continuous wave condensation technique. Group A: using Endosequence BC, Group B: using AH Plus sealer, Group C: using Resilon Epiphany system. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration method. Teeth were split longitudinally and then horizontally markings were made at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. Dye penetration evaluation was done under stereomicroscope (30X magnification).
Results: The dye penetration in Group B was more than in Group A and C in both vertical and horizontal directions, suggesting that newly introduced BC sealer and Epiphany sealer sealed the root canal better compared to AH Plus Sealer.
Conclusion: Newer root canal sealers seal the root canal better but cannot totally eliminate leakage. Keywords: AH Plus; apical microleakage; bioceramic; epiphany; methylene blue, sealers
How to cite this article:
Pawar SS, Pujar MA, Makandar SD. Evaluation of the apical sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH plus & epiphany: An in vitro study
. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:579-82 |
How to cite this URL:
Pawar SS, Pujar MA, Makandar SD. Evaluation of the apical sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH plus & epiphany: An in vitro study
. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2014 [cited 2023 Jun 9];17:579-82. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2014/17/6/579/144609 |
| Introduction | |  |
Root canal treatment without obturation or with improper obturation is termed as incomplete root canal treatment. Ingle and colleagues radiographically studied endodontic success and failure; they indicated that 58% of treatment failures were due to incomplete obturation. [1] The three dimensional (3D) obturation is the primary objective of root canal therapy, the purpose of obturation in turn is to seal all "portals of exit". Obturation impedes any sort communication between periapex, periodontal space and root canal. [2] thus entombing the micro-organisms and preventing re-infection by spread of microbial toxins.
Sealers can be a cause of root canal failure due to microleakage at sealer-dentin or sealer-core material interface. [2],[3],[4] Bonding of the sealer to the root canal dentin wall and formation of a monoblock can eliminate this drawback.
An ideal endodontic sealer should fulfil all ideal requisites. The tight seal at the apex can be enhanced, sealer bonds chemically to the dentinal wall of root canal, and mild expansion of the sealer improves its adaptation to the canal walls. It should be antibacterial and resistant to dissolution. One of such sealer is bioceramic (BC) sealer. [1]
BC sealer is a recently introduced sealer, composed of zirconium oxide, calcium silicates, calcium phosphate monobasic, calcium hydroxide, and various filling and thickening agents. The material is available in premixed calibrated syringes with intra-canal tips. As a hydrophilic sealer it utilizes moisture within the canal to complete the setting reaction and it does not shrink on setting.
The present study was undertaken to compare and evaluate the apical sealing ability of newly introduced BC sealer that is, Endosequence BC Sealer and two commonly used sealers - AH plus and Epiphany sealer. [5],[6] The null hypothesis tested was that there are no differences in the apical sealing ability between the sealers groups tested.
| Materials and methods | | |
Source of data
The study was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics and Department of Microbiology, MMNGH Institute of Dental Sciences, Belgaum, Karnataka, India, on 75 extracted human single rooted permanent teeth.
Materials and methodology
Seventy five extracted human single rooted permanent teeth with fully developed root apices, straight roots, free of cracks, caries, resorptive defects and fractures were selected for the study. After removal of the external debris, teeth were placed in 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution for 2 hours and stored in normal saline. Teeth were decoronated 12 mm from the apex, canals were accessed. Instrumentation was done with 11 mm working length using a crown-down technique with Rotary Pro taper files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballagigues, Switzerland) to F3. All the canals were irrigated with 10 mL of a freshly prepared solution of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and 17% EDTA solution alternatively between files and the final irrigation was done with normal saline. The canals were then dried with sterile paper points.
Obturation of canals
The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups of 25 samples each.
Group A: with GP, using Endosequence BC (Brasseler, Savannah, USA).
Group B: with GP, using AH Plus sealer (Dentsply, De Trey Konstanz, Germany).
Group C: with Resilon Epiphany system, i.e. Real Seal SE (SybronEndo, Korea).
After obturation by continuous wave condensation technique (E & Q Plus System; Meta Dental Corp, Korea), the coronal opening was sealed with glass ionomer cement, restorative type (Type 2, GC Gold Label, Japan). The samples were then stored in a humid atmosphere (Incubator) at 37 o C for 24 hours. Later, the surfaces of the samples were dried and two layers of coloured nail varnish was applied on the surface 2 mm short of the apex. Roots were then suspended in freshly prepared 1% methylene blue for 72 hours. Following this, the roots were rinsed for 15 minutes under running tap water.
Preparation of specimens for microleakage evaluation
The varnish layers were scrapped off and the roots were split longitudinally parallel to the long axis with a diamond disc using a water coolant and markings were made at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The depth of dye penetration was examined under stereomicroscope (Magnus) at 30 magnification and microleakage associated with different root canal sealers was evaluated and values were obtained in units. These values were then converted to millimetres for vertical dye penetration and micrometers for horizontal dye penetration, using the following standard formulae -
Statistical analysis
The results were analysed by one way ANOVA, t-test and Newman-Keuls multiple post hoc procedures. Statistical significance was defined in advance as P < 0.05 using the SPSS9.0 for Windows (SPSS Inc, Chicago, IL, USA) statistical package.
| Results | | |
Shows microleakage in three different groups. [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] show the statistical analysis done. | Table 1: Comparison of three groups with respect to vertical penetration of dye by one way ANOVA
Click here to view |
 | Table 2: Pair wise comparison of three groups with respect to vertical penetration of dye by Tukeys multiple post hoc procedures
Click here to view |
 | Table 3: Comparison of three groups (A, B, C) with horizontal penetration of dye at 2 mm, 4 mm and 6mm length scores by one way ANOVA
Click here to view |
The results of this study showed that the vertical dye penetration was least for Group A and C, and highest for Group B with significant (P < 0.05) difference found between Group A and Group B, and Group B and Group C, there was no significant difference found between Group A and Group C. Pair wise comparison of three groups by Newman-Keuls multiple post hoc procedures was done for horizontal dye penetration, it showed, at 2 mm, the results were not significant, but at 4mm and 6mm there was a significant (P < 0.05) difference except for group A vs C at 6 mm.
| Discussion | | |
As a consequence of the current results, the null hypothesis was rejected. The main objective of a root filling is to obturate the entire root canal system and produce an impervious apical seal. Obturation of a root canal is done by two materials one being the core and other is the sealer. Core is either cold or thermoplasticized, warm condensation multi phase (gutta-percha - sealer) technique is considered as "golden" standard for endodontic treatment, that result in a friction fit, "cork-in-the-bottle" type sealing. [7]
Various types of sealers are available, from Eugenol based, Non Eugenol to most recent being Calcium silicate sealers. Each of them have their own inherent drawbacks, still the search for ideal sealer is on.
To evaluate the sealing ability of sealers, tracers like dyes, radioisotopes, bacteria and their products, such as endotoxins and other methodologies like fluid filtration and dye extraction method have been used. [8] One of the commonly applied methods to evaluate the sealing ability of different root filling materials and techniques is based on linear measurement of dye penetration. Dyes like Eosin, Methylene blue, Black India Ink, Procion brilliant blue, etc are used. Methylene blue dye was used in this study as its molecular size is similar to bacterial by-products such as butyric acid which can leak out of infected root canals to irritate periapical tissues, also it is easy to use, pH manipulation and availability add to it advantages. [9],[10] In our study the flow of methylene blue dye in the tooth through the apex, determined the result for the sealers evaluated. Methylene blue dye has the potential to enter the obturated canals through complex anatomies of apical third of the root canal or space between dentin-sealer-core material interfaces. The vertical and horizontal penetration of dye was measured in units by a stereomicroscope using micrometer eye-piece to achieve more accurate results.
Studies in past have evaluated the apical sealing ability of various sealers by different methods like antibacterial effectiveness, fluid filtration method and use of SEM, light microscope or digitally captured images for evaluation of sealer- dentin interface. [15] The present study was done to compare and evaluate the amount of apical leakage in root canal walls after obturation using three different root canal sealers, using dye penetration method.
Among various types of sealer used today AH plus has gained popularity due to its radiopacity, biocompatibility, ease to use and availability. AH Plus is an epoxy-bis-phenol resin based sealer that also contains adamantine and bonds to root canal. [11]
It is a two-component paste/paste root canal sealer. Since it contains resin and has faster setting time AH Plus tends to shrink and cause early debonding from the root canal wall. [12] AH plus has greater adhesion to root dentin than Epiphany, it can be likely due to the fact that, as an epoxy resin-based sealer, AH Plus has better penetration into the micro-irregularities because of its creep capacity and long setting time, which increases the mechanical interlocking between sealer and root dentin. But to contradict this there is inadequate bonding between the sealer and the gutta-percha point, allowing fluid leakage at this interface. [12] This was observed in our study, which could be one of the reason Group B recorded a mean value (8.0480) significantly more in vertical penetration of dye compared to Group A and Group C.
Resilon Epiphany Obturating system is known for its property of monoblock formation. It uses polymerizable methacrylate carboxylic acid anhydride (4-META) as the acidic resin monomer. [13] Epiphany sealer is a dual cure and bonds to a resilon core and root canal dentin simultaneously. Considering the bonding ability, there was no significant difference found by an scanning electron microscope (SEM) study done between bond of sealer to dentin between GP/AH Plus sealer and Resilon Epiphany. [15] Contradicting this finding, the results of our study correspond to a study was done using fluid filtration method comparing the sealing ability of Resilon/Epiphany and GP/AH Plus sealer, results showed significantly less leakage in Resilon/Epiphany. [21] Sealer contains a resin that is polymer, therefore polymerization shrinkage is of concern. Polymerization shrinkage disrupts the close initial contact between the sealer and the surrounding dentin and creates shrinkage gaps. These shrinkage stresses are overcome swelling of the hydrophilic resin. [13]
Endosequence BC Sealer is a recently introduced Calcium Silicate based BC sealer, described by its manufacturer as an insoluble, radiopaque, aluminum-free material that requires the presence of water to set and harden. [6],[16] BC sealer being biocompatible and hydrophilic in nature it expands on setting forming a 'self seal', this expansion can reach upto 0.2% on completion of setting reaction. [5] This expansion, chemical and micromechanical bonding all in total increase the bonding of the sealer to root canal walls. Adding to this, high pH (12.8) during the initial 24 hours of the setting process makes this sealer strongly antibacterial. [6]
The result of our study correspond to study. [18] done using India ink dye, this study compared the apical leakage between canals filled with gutta-percha/AH-Plus and the Resilon/Epiphany System, when submitted to two filling techniques. Authors here used clearing technique and found Resilon Epiphany system to be superior. The author attributed this result to the formation of hybrid layer on root canal dentin wall.
The overall lowest mean values for Group A (Endosequence BC Sealer) may be attributed to aforementioned, near to ideal sealer properties and some drawbacks of sealer used in Group B and C. These results are supported by studies done comparing bond strength. [16] and bond strength in presence of moisture. [19] but in an SEM study. [20] done using fluid filtration method that compared BC sealer with resin sealer using two different obturating techniques; SEM analysis of the samples showed gaps at sealer-dentine and the cone-sealer interfaces for specimens that leaked the most, it was concluded that iRootSP was equivalent to AH Plus sealer.
| Conclusion | | |
Leakage cannot be totally eliminated from the fate of a root canal treated teeth; lateral canals, accessory canals and other anatomical variation play an important role in this, with periapical pressure being the leading factor. Considering that the areas which are commonly unaffected by instrumentation and irrigation during root canal preparation, where an more viscous material like sealer can't reach, can open up spaces for leakage and decrease the chances of success.
| References | | |
| 1. | Ingle JI, Bakland LK, Baumgartner JC. Ingle's Endodontics 6 th ed. Hamilton: BC Decker Inc; 2008; p. 1053-87.  |
| 2. | Nair U, Ghattas S, Saber M, Natera M, Walker C, Pileggi R. A comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of 2 root-end filling materials: An in vitro leakage study using Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:e74-7. |
| 3. | Drukteinis S, Peciuliene V, Maneliene R, Bendinskaite R. In vitro study of microbial leakage in roots filled with EndoREZ sealer/EndoREZ Points and AH Plus sealer/conventional gutta-percha points. Stomatologija 2009;11:21-5. |
| 4. | Liviu S. Comparison of the interface dentin-endodontic sealer using two SEM magnifications. Rev Odonto Ciênc 2010;25:296-9. |
| 5. | Kossev D, Stefanov V. Ceramics-based sealers as new alternative to currently used endodontic sealers. Roots 2009;1:42-8. |
| 6. | Ken K. A review of bioceramic technology in endodontics. Roots 2012;4:6-12. |
| 7. | Nunes VH, Silva RG, Alfredo E, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva-Sousa YT. Adhesion of Epiphany and AH Plus sealers to human root dentin treated with different solutions. Braz Dent J 2008;19:46-50. |
| 8. | Veríssimo DM, do Vale MS. Methodologies for assessment of apical and coronal leakage of endodontic filling materials: A critical review. J Oral Sci 48;3:93-8. |
| 9. | Tanomaru-Filho M, Pinto RV, Bosso R, Nascimento CA, Berbert FL, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM. Evaluation of the thermoplasticity of gutta-percha and Resilon using the Obtura II system at different temperature settings. Int Endod J 2011;44:764-8. |
| 10. | Figdor D. Apical periodontitis: A very prevalent problem. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94:651-2. |
| 11. | Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo cytotoxicity of a new calcium silicate-based canal filling material. Int Endod J 2010;43:769-74. |
| 12. | Ruddle CJ. Advanced Endodontics. Gauging the Terminus: A Novel Method.. Available from: http://www.endoruddle.com/blogs/show/21. [Last accessed on 2012 May 25] |
| 13. | Kim YK, Grandini S, Ames JM, Gu LS, Kim SK, Pashley DH, et al. Critical review on methacrylate resin-based root canal sealers. J Endod 2010;36:383-99. |
| 14. | Flucke J. John Flucke's Dental Technology Blog - Ramblings of Dentistry's Technology Evangelist [Internet]. Available from http://blog.denticle.com/2011/03/sybron-endo-transitioning-all-resilon.html [Last accessed on 2013 Oct 8]. |
| 15. | Tay FR, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Kimbrough WF, Pashley DH, Mak YF, et al. Ultrastructural evaluation of the apical seal in roots filled with a polycaprolactone-based root canal filling material. J Endod 2005;31:514-9. |
| 16. | Ersahan S, Aydin C. Dislocation resistance of iRoot SP, a calcium silicate-based sealer, from radicular dentine. J Endod 2010;36:2000-2. |
| 17. | Bouillaguet S, Shaw L, Barthelemy J, Krejci I, Wataha JC. Long-term sealing ability of Pulp Canal Sealer, AH-Plus, GuttaFlow and Epiphany. Int Endod J 2008;41:219-26. |
| 18. | Veríssimo DM, do Vale MS, Monteiro AJ. Comparison of apical leakage between canals filled with gutta-percha/AH-Plus and the Resilon/Epiphany System, when submitted to two filling techniques. J Endod 2007;33:291-4. |
| 19. | Nagas E, Uyanik MO, Eymirli A, Cehreli ZC, Vallittu PK, Lassila LV, et al. Dentin moisture conditions affect the adhesion of root canal sealers. J Endod 2012;38:240-4. |
| 20. | Zhang H, Shen Y, Ruse ND, Haapasalo M. Antibacterial activity of endodontic sealers by modified direct contact test against Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod 2009;35:1051-5. |
| 21. | Raina R, Loushine RJ, Weller RN, Tay FR, Pashley DH. Evaluation of the quality of the apical seal in Resilon/Epiphany and Gutta-Percha/AH Plus-filled root canals by using a fluid filtrationn approach. J Endod 2007;33:944-7. |
Correspondence Address:
Suprit Sudhir Pawar
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Maratha Mandal Nathajirao, G Halgekar Institute of Dental Sciences and Research Centre, R.S. No. 47 A/2, Bauxite road, Belgaum - 590 010, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.144609
[Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Volume and power of expansion of novel polyurethane-based sealers |
|
| Mohammad Ali Saghiri, Julia Vakhnovetsky, Anna Vakhnovetsky, Elham Samadi, Fatereh Samadi | | Journal of Endodontics. 2023; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
A confocal laser scanning microscopic evaluation of nonthermal atmospheric plasma on the dentinal tubule penetration of bioceramic and epoxy resin-based root canal sealers |
|
| Roopadevi Garlapati, PraveenKumar Gali, Nagesh Bolla, BandlapallySreenivasa Guptha Anila, Sayesh Vemuri, BandaruPydiah Naidu | | Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2023; 26(3): 265 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Evaluation of reinforcement effect of capillary condensation technique in teeth with simulated internal resorption cavity: An in vitro study |
|
| DurgaPrasad Naik Ketavatu, GirijaS Sajjan, RKalyan Satish, PVenkata Karteekvarma, BV Sindhuja, MSuvarna Suni | | Journal of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University. 2023; 18(1): 44 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Comparative Evaluation of the Sealing Ability of a BioCeramic Sealer (iRoot SP) with AH Plus Sealer with Root Canal Dentin Using Three Different Techniques of Sealer Application: A Combined Dye Extraction and Scanning Electron Microscope Study |
|
| Shreya Bhor, Ajay Singh Rao, Unnati Shah, Meetu Mathur, Rodolfo Reda, Francesco Pagnoni, Luca Testarelli, Alexander Maniangat Luke, Ajinkya M. Pawar | | Journal of Composites Science. 2023; 7(3): 106 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Comparative evaluation of apical sealing efficacy of guttaflow bioseal, super-bond Rc sealer and adseal root canal sealer |
|
| SyedMueen Ahmed, KrantiSorte Gawali, Princy Paul, PrabuMahin Syed Ismail, ArwaAbdullah Alkhelaiwi, MohammedAbdullah Alkhelaiwi | | Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences. 2022; 14(5): 962 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 6 |
Efficacy of Photoinduced Photoacoustic Streaming and Diode Laser Irrigation Techniques on Smear Layer Removal, Sealer Penetration and Push-out Bond Strength |
|
| Latifa Mohamed Abdelgawad, Nancy Attia Ahmed ElShafei, Somaia Abdlatif Eissa, Dalia Yahia Ibrahim | | Journal of Lasers in Medical Sciences. 2022; 13(1): e12 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 7 |
Tricalcium silicate cement sealers |
|
| Anita Aminoshariae, Carolyn Primus, James C. Kulild | | The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 8 |
Fabrication and characterisation of novel algin incorporated bioactive-glass 58S calcium-silicate-based root canal sealer |
|
| Galvin Sim Siang Lin, Daniel Hong Heng Sim, Norhayati Luddin, Josephine Chang Hui Lai, Huwaina Abd Ghani, Tahir Yusuf Noorani | | Journal of Dental Sciences. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 9 |
Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: A systematic review & meta-analysis |
|
| Ramakumar Rekha, R. Kavitha, Ramanarayanan Venkitachalam, Singh VP. Prabath, S. Deepthy, Venugopal Krishnan | | Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research. 2022; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 10 |
Effect of a heat-based root canal obturation technique on push-out bond strength of the classical bioceramic and new HiFlow sealer |
|
| Anat Dewi, Chawin Upara, Thanapat Sastraruji, Phumisak Louwakul | | Australian Endodontic Journal. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 11 |
Coronal and apical leakage among five endodontic sealers |
|
| Kali Vo, Joan Daniel, Chul Ahn, Carolyn Primus, Takashi Komabayashi | | Journal of Oral Science. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 12 |
Comparison of sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH plus, and guttaflow in conservatively prepared curved root canals obturated with single-cone technique: An In vitro study |
|
| Shalan Kaul, Ajay Kumar, BhumikaKamal Badiyani, Laxmi Sukhtankar, M Madhumitha, Amit Kumar | | Journal of Pharmacy And Bioallied Sciences. 2021; 13(5): 857 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 13 |
Effects of Ultrasonic Activation on Root Canal Filling Quality of Single-Cone Obturation with Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer |
|
| Sin-Young Kim, Young-Eun Jang, Bom Sahn Kim, Eun-Kyoung Pang, Kiche Shim, Hye Ryeon Jin, Min Kyung Son, Yemi Kim | | Materials. 2021; 14(5): 1292 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 14 |
Physico-Chemical Properties of Calcium-Silicate vs. Resin Based Sealers—A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Laboratory-Based Studies |
|
| Viresh Chopra, Graham Davis, Aylin Baysan | | Materials. 2021; 15(1): 229 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 15 |
Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of Fiber Post Failure Modes after Use of Three Different Endodontic Sealers: An In Vitro Study |
|
| Ravi Vaiyapuri, Chittrarasu Mathimaraiselvan, Anjaneya Shiva Prasad, Ragavi Shanmugam, Jambai Sampath Kumar Sivakumar, Saravana Priyan Soundappan | | Journal of Operative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2021; 6(1): 6 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 16 |
Comparative Evaluation of the Apical Sealing Ability of Two Root Canal Sealers Using the Two Different Placement Techniques: An In Vitro Study
|
|
| Baby James, A Devadathan, Manuja Nair, Jose Jacob, S Pallavi, NJ Nagaraj | | Conservative Dentistry and Endodontic Journal. 2020; 5(1): 11 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 17 |
Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: a literature review |
|
| Miyoung Lim, Chanyong Jung, Dong-Hoon Shin, Yong-bum Cho, Minju Song | | Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2020; 45(3) | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 18 |
A Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis of Sealing Potential and Marginal Adaptation of Different Root Canal Sealers to Dentin: An In Vitro study
|
|
| Pratik Agrawal, Suraj Arora, Gaurav Patri, Nanjegowda Anushree, Jimly J Kunjappu, Shaheen V Shamsuddin | | The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2020; 21(1): 73 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 19 |
Efficacies of mineral trioxide aggregate and bioceramic root canal sealer with two types of gutta-percha toward the apical leakage |
|
| ChristianEka Pramudita, BernardOngki Iskandar, Wiena Widyastuti, DidiNugroho Santosa | | Scientific Dental Journal. 2020; 4(1): 11 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 20 |
Comprehensive review of current endodontic sealers |
|
| Takashi KOMABAYASHI, David COLMENAR, Nicholas CVACH, Aparna BHAT, Carolyn PRIMUS, Yohji IMAI | | Dental Materials Journal. 2020; 39(5): 703 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 21 |
Real-time nanoleakage and the flow characteristics of calcium silicate root canal filling materials |
|
| Su-Min Park, Yeon-Jee Yoo, In-Bog Lee, WooCheol Lee | | Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials. 2020; 112: 104111 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 22 |
Comparison of push-out bond strength of three different obturating systems to intraradicular dentin: An In vitro study |
|
| MohammedKhwaja Moinuddin, LKarthik Prasad, Nimeshika Ramachandruni, Shekar Kamishetty, RaviChandra Cherkupalli | | Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2019; 10(4): 631 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 23 |
In vitro study of the periapical sealing ability of three root canal sealing cement |
|
| Ignacio Barbero-Navarro, MariaEsther Irigoyen-Camacho, Antonio Castano-Seiquer, MarcoAntonio Zepeda-Zepeda, Francisco Martins, Paulo Mauricio | | SRM Journal of Research in Dental Sciences. 2019; 10(4): 173 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 24 |
Root Canal Filling Quality of a Premixed Calcium Silicate Endodontic Sealer Applied Using Gutta-percha Cone-mediated Ultrasonic Activation |
|
| Jung-Ae Kim, Yun-Chan Hwang, Vinicius Rosa, Mi-Kyung Yu, Kwang-Won Lee, Kyung-San Min | | Journal of Endodontics. 2018; 44(1): 133 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 25 |
Comparison of Tubular Penetration of AH26, EasySeal, and SureSeal Root Canal Sealers in Single-Rooted Teeth Using Scanning Electron Microscopy |
|
| S Toursavadkohi, F Zameni, M Afkar | | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences. 2018; 3(3): 27 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 26 |
An in vitro comparative analysis of sealing ability of bioceramic-based, methacrylate-based, and epoxy resin-based sealers |
|
| Mariyam Hasnain, Parul Bansal, Vineeta Nikhil | | Endodontology. 2017; 29(2): 146 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 27 |
Evaluation of percentage and depth of smartpaste bio versus AH plus sealer penetration using three different activation techniques: A confocal laser scanning microscopic study |
|
| Vibha Hegde, Ashwin Jain, RamaPradeep Mhadgut | | Endodontology. 2017; 29(2): 130 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 11670 | | | Printed | 241 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 736 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 27 | | |
|
|
