Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 504
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 25  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 145-150
Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of bioceramic and epoxy sealers after using various final irrigants: An in vitro study


Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Mallareddy Dental college for Women, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission10-Jan-2022
Date of Decision11-Jan-2022
Date of Acceptance20-Jan-2022
Date of Web Publication04-May-2022
 

   Abstract 


Aim: The aim of the study is to compare the push-out bond strength of bioceramic and epoxy sealers after using various final irrigants.
Materials and Methods: Hundred single-rooted teeth were divided into two groups (n = 50) according to the sealer used: Group A: Bio C (bioceramic sealer), Group B: Dia-Proseal (epoxy sealer). Each group was subdivided into five subgroups (n = 10) according to the final irrigation protocol: Group A1 and B1 – 5% glycolic acid (GA), Group A2 and B2 – 17% GA, Group A3 and B3 – 0.2% chitosan, Group A4 and B4 – 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, and Group A5 and B5 – 0.9% saline. Samples were obturated in combination with one of the mentioned sealers and were allowed to set for 1 week. Two horizontal slices were obtained from each sample and subjected to push-out test.
Statistical Analysis: The data were statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA and independent Student's t-test.
Results: Both the sealers exhibited higher push-out bond strength after treatment with GA with no significant difference between 5% and 17% GA. Bio C sealer with GA as final irrigant showed higher bond strength than Dia-Proseal (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: The push-out bond strength of the sealer was significantly affected by the final irrigation solution used. The highest push-out bond strength was seen with Bio C sealer after treatment with GA with no significant difference between 5% and 17% GA.

Keywords: Bio C sealer; Chitosan; Dia-Proseal sealer; ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid; Glycolic acid; Push-out bond strength

How to cite this article:
Veeramachaneni C, Aravelli S, Dundigalla S. Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of bioceramic and epoxy sealers after using various final irrigants: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2022;25:145-50

How to cite this URL:
Veeramachaneni C, Aravelli S, Dundigalla S. Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of bioceramic and epoxy sealers after using various final irrigants: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 24];25:145-50. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2022/25/2/145/344809



   Introduction Top


The successful endodontic treatment relies on eradication of microorganisms and establishing bacterial tight seal of root canal by endodontic sealer to prevent the regrowth of microorganisms or newly gained infection due to leakage in the coronal or apical region.[1]

The relation between gutta-percha and the endodontic sealer is important for an ideal root canal filling. A root canal sealer should exhibit appropriate physicochemical and biological properties. An ideal root canal sealer should display excellent sealing ability, biocompatibility, dimensional stability, insolubility, and slow setting time.[2]

Of late, new root canal sealers have been launched as an alternative to conventional sealers that enhance clinical outcomes. One of them is Dia-Proseal sealer (Dia-Proseal, Diadent, Cheongju, Korea). It is an epoxy resin-based sealer with suitable physicochemical properties, cell viability, and root canal sealing ability.[3]

Recently introduced premixed, hydraulic tricalcium silicate-based sealer is Bio C sealer (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil). It has a short setting time, alkaline pH, radiopacity, low volumetric shrinkage. According to the manufacturer, it has various characteristics such as fast setting time, good sealing of complex root canal system, volume stability, long-term storage ability, and dual syringe system allowing easy mixture.[4]

The presence of smear layer on radicular dentin compromises the penetration of sealers, irrigating solutions, and medicaments into the dentinal tubules.[5] This smear layer prevents intimate contact between the root canal sealer and dentin walls, which hinder the adhesion of sealers, as it decreases their dislodgment resistance to root dentin.[6]

Sequential administration of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) is the most common final irrigation method to ensure effective disinfection, smear layer removal, and organic tissue dissolution in root canals. However, the use of EDTA in root canal treatment has several potential drawbacks. First, the combined application of EDTA and NaOCl was shown to decrease the amount of free available chlorine in the mixture, which would reduce the antibacterial and tissue-dissolving capacity of the NaOCl.[7] The research for alternative final irrigants which are biocompatible, effective in smear layer removal without causing damage to the root dentin structure and properties is needed to ensure the success of the root canal treatment.[8] Some of the alternative final irrigants included in the present study are glycolic acid (GA) and chitosan.

GA or hydroxyethanoic acid is an alpha hydroxy acid which is a colorless, odorless, substance with high solubility in water.[9] The activity of this acid is based on the removal of free radicals and induces the formation of collagen fibers.[10] It is effective in smear layer removal, similar to EDTA and citric acid. GA was less cytotoxic than EDTA. It has also been suggested as an alternative final irrigation solution for root canal preparation.[11]

Chitosan is a natural polysaccharide that is biocompatible and biodegradable, exhibits a broad-spectrum antimicrobial property, and is associated with high chelating characteristics.[12]

Bond strength of endodontic sealers to dentin is an essential property because it reduces the risk of disengagement of filling material from dentin during restorative procedures or the masticatory function, making sure that sealing is maintained and thus the clinical success of endodontic treatment.[13]

However, there are some data regarding physiochemical properties of the Dia-Proseal, Bio C sealer, and GA. To our knowledge, there is no study evaluating the effect of GA or different irrigation solutions on the push-out bond strength of Dia-Proseal and Bio C sealer.

The aim of the present study is to evaluate the influence of different final irrigation solutions on the push-out bond strength of Bio C sealer and Dia-Proseal sealer. The null hypotheses were as follows:

  1. There is no difference in the efficacy of different irrigants used on the push-out bond strength of sealers
  2. There is no difference in the push-out bond strength of both the sealers.



   Materials and Methods Top


After approval from the Ethics Committee for Research, one hundred single-rooted human teeth extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons were obtained. Teeth with surface defects and cracks, calcified roots, open apices, accentuated curvatures, multirooted teeth, restored and fractured tooth, and previous endodontic treatments were excluded from the study.

The extracted teeth were decoronated to provide 16 mm ± 1 of root length using a diamond disk underwater coolant system. The root canal was negotiated with stainless steel endodontic K file size 10 (Mani, Japan) until visualized at the apical foramen. Working length was determined by taking radiographs 1 mm short of apical foramen with K file. The canal diameter is standardized with apical file #25.

Standardized biomechanical preparation of the canals was completed using PROTAPER GOLD rotary files (DENTSPLY) in a crown-down manner till F3. Canals are irrigated with 2 ml 5.25% NaOCl solution intermittently except for the group irrigated with saline.

The samples obtained are randomly divided into two groups (n = 50) as per the endodontic sealer used: Group A: Bio C sealer (Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) and Group B: Dia-Proseal sealer (Dia-Proseal, Diadent, Cheongju, Korea) [Table 1].
Table 1: Materials used in the study, their manufacturer, and their chemical compositions

Click here to view


Each group is further subdivided into five subgroups (n = 10) as per the final irrigant used [Table 2] and [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Experimental groups

Click here to view
Table 2: Experimental groups

Click here to view


Then, each sample was irrigated with 5 ml of each irrigant for 1 min using a side vented endodontic irrigating needle (RC Twents, Prime Dental Products). The final flush is performed with 5 ml saline solution and dried with #30 paper points.

Group A: Premixed Bioceramic sealer is placed into the canal with the provided syringe tip to fill the canal and the Gutta-percha cone is inserted into the canal coated with the Bio C sealer until it reaches the working length. Lateral compaction was achieved with a hand spreader size 20, and 2% accessory GP was placed to fill up the remaining space by lateral condensation technique.

Group B: According to the manufacturer's instructions, an appropriate amount of base and catalyst (1:1 wt ratio) is dispensed onto a mixing pad. They were mixed with the spatula for 10–20 s until the ivory color is obtained. After thorough drying of canals, the sealer was applied with Lentulo spiral on the walls of the canal and tips of dry disinfected gutta-percha points dipped into the Dia-Proseal sealer and placed up to the working length.

The samples were coronally restored with cavit G and stored in an incubator at 37°C and 95% relative humidity for 1 week before pushing out the assessment.

Root specimens in each of the groups were completely embedded in clear acrylic. Then, each root was sectioned horizontally using a diamond disk into 2-mm thick slices [Figure 2]a approximately at 3 and 7 mm from the root apex. (The apical most 3-mm portion of each root was discarded to avoid apical ramifications.) The thickness of each slice was calculated with a digital caliper to ensure uniformity in specimen dimension.
Figure 2: Sample preparation for push-out test: (a) 2-mm thick slices were made using a diamond disk. (b) Specimen positioned on a metallic platform of a universal testing machine

Click here to view


Push out bond strength test

The root slices were placed on custom made acrylic mold with a cavity in the centre to enable the push out of filling material. Each specimen was subjected to a push-out test by means of a Universal Testing Machine (Kelvn Labs, Hyderabad) using a cylindrical stainless steel plunger of 0.5 mm applying a dislodging force in an apical-coronal direction at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/min until debonding occurred [Figure 2]b. The maximum force was converted to megapascals (Mpa) after the dislodging force was measured in Newton by the formula:

Bond strength = F/A

F = maximum force (N)

A = Area

A = πh (r1 + r2)

π = Constant 3.14

r1 = apical radius

r2 = coronal radius

h = thickness of the sample in millimeters

Statistical analysis

The analysis was performed using SPSS software version 16 (Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0, IBM Corporation, Armonk, New York, USA). P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Two-way ANOVA, independent Student's t-test has been used to assess the significance among various groups.


   Results Top


The mean and standard deviation of push-out bond strength of sealers after using different irrigants are presented in [Table 3].
Table 3: Comparison of mean push-out bond strength values based on sealers and different root canal irrigants using two-way ANOVA test

Click here to view


Comparing between the sealers, Bio C sealer showed significantly higher bond strength than Dia-Proseal sealer. The interaction between irrigants and root canal dentin showed significantly higher push-out bond strength for GA with no significant difference between 5% and 17% concentrations.

The interaction between sealer and irrigant was evaluated using Student's t-test. The mean push-out bond strength calculated is shown in [Table 4] and [Graph 1]. The push-out bond strength values of Bio C sealer with 5% and 17% GA irrigant showed significantly higher bond strength among all the irrigants and sealers used, whereas 0.9% saline showed the least bond strength values.
Table 4: Independent Student's t-test for comparison of mean push-out bond strength between sealer materials based on the application of different final irrigants

Click here to view




   Discussion Top


Capability of adhesion to dentin is a cardinal factor for root canal sealers. An ideal root canal sealer should bond to both root dentin and gutta-percha and must seal the root canal space.[14] Higher bond strength minimizes the leakage and improves the stability of root canal obturation material.[15]

The push-out test is frequently used to determine the bond strength between root canal sealer and root dentin, as this method allows better evaluation of bond strength because here, the fracture occurs parallel to the resin interface.[16]

In this study, the null hypothesis was rejected as there was a difference in the push-out bond strength between Dia-Proseal and Bio C root canal sealers and when used with 5% GA, 17% glycolic acid, 0.2% chitosan, and 17% EDTA irrigating solutions.

According to the results of the present study, higher bond strength is exhibited by Bio C sealer to root dentin compared to Dia-Proseal sealer due to the setting reaction of the sealer, which utilizes the moisture in the medium and results in the formation of calcium silicate hydrate gel.[17] It also exhibits an excellent flow rate[4] which allows the better penetration of the sealer into the minor irregularities of the root canal.[18] It shows chemical adhesion to dentin by promoting the formation of mineral infiltration zone.[19] Its bioactivity is due to hydroxyapatite formation after contact with phosphate on calcium silicate sealers' surface.[20]

Benetti et al. demonstrated greater cytocompatibility, tenascin expression, and biocompatibility of Bio C sealer similar to white MTA Angelus.[21]

In the present study, the highest push-out bond strength was observed when samples are irrigated with GA. This could be due to its ability in smear layer removal similar to EDTA and citric acid even at 5% and 10% concentration of GA. Furthermore, it also causes demineralization of dentin by its acidic pH (2.36 and 2.18), which may lead to an increase of the surface roughness which enables a clinical benefit in micromechanical bonding of the adhesive materials.[11]

Bello et al. reported no changes in dentin flexural strength.[22] They also reported a reduction in microhardness and apatite/collagen ratio with increasing concentrations of GA.[11],[22]

As we have observed more bond strength for 5% GA compared to 17% GA (though not significant), the probable reason might be 17% GA might have caused more damage to the collagen of dentin, thereby compromising the bond strength of dentin.

Subsequent to GA, a better result was obtained when 0.2% chitosan is used with Bio C sealer. Chitosan is a hydrophilic polymer that is adsorbed onto the root dentin and enables it to penetrate deeper into dentinal tubules and consists of a higher number of free hydroxyl and amino groups which makes it cationic in nature, permitting the ionic interaction with the calcium ions of the dentin.[23] Antunes et al. reported that 0.2% of chitosan on the dentin surface removes the smear layer and unblocks the dentinal tubules with a small amount of erosion of peritubular dentin.[24] Mathew et al. reported that chitosan is an effective chelating agent with less alteration in root dentin and can be considered as a less invasive replacement to 17% EDTA.[25]

In the present study, the push-out bond strength of Bio C sealer is reduced by 17% EDTA when used as a final irrigant. This could be due to the chelation of calcium by EDTA that can disrupt the hydration of calcium silicate. The depletion of calcium at the sealer–dentin interface or degradation of the calcium silicate fraction in the sealer might inhibit the formation of the mineral infiltration zone, which may result in a weaker interaction between the root canal wall and the sealer.[19]

The lowest push-out bond strength is observed in the control group as the smear layer was left intact which indicates the negative impact of undisturbed smear layer on the push-out bond strength values.[26]

Limitations of the study

While the efficiency of individual irrigants was evaluated, their use in combination and their interactions are not tested in this study. Therefore, further in vivo studies need to be conducted to determine the correct action and sequence of different irrigants used to improve the push-out bond strength.


   Conclusion Top


  • Bio C sealer exhibited the highest push-out bond strength compared to Dia-Proseal sealer when different final irrigants were used
  • Bio C sealer and Dia-Proseal sealer exhibited greater push-out bond strength after treatment with GA
  • When final irrigants were assessed, 5% and 17% GA has resulted in improved push-out bond strength compared to 0.2% chitosan and 17% EDTA for both the sealers
  • Hence, 5% GA can be suggested as a final rinse to improve the push-out bond strength.


Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
   References Top

1.
Donnermeyer D, Dornseifer P, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. The push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers. Head Face Med 2018;14:13.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Grossman L. Endodontic Practice. 10th ed. Philadelphia (PA): Henry Kimpton Publishers; 1981.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Song YS, Choi Y, Lim MJ, Yu MK, Hong CU, Lee KW, et al. In vitro evaluation of a newly produced resin-based endodontic sealer. Restor Dent Endod 2016;41:189-95.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Zordan-Bronzel CL, Esteves Torres FF, Tanomaru-Filho M, Chávez-Andrade GM, Bosso-Martelo R, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM. Evaluation of physicochemical properties of a new calcium silicate-based sealer, bio-C sealer. J Endod 2019;45:1248-52.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Kuçi A, Alaçam T, Yavaş O, Ergul-Ulger Z, Kayaoglu G. Sealer penetration into dentinal tubules in the presence or absence of smear layer: A confocal laser scanning microscopic study. J Endod 2014;40:1627-31.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Sagsen B, Ustün Y, Demirbuga S, Pala K. Push-out bond strength of two new calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers to root canal dentine. Int Endod J 2011;44:1088-91.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Grawehr M, Sener B, Waltimo T, Zehnder M. Interactions of ethylenediamine tetraacetic acid with sodium hypochlorite in aqueous solutions. Int Endod J 2003;36:411-7.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Barcellos DP, Farina AP, Barcellos R, Souza MA, Borba M, Bedran-Russo AK, et al. Effect of a new irrigant solution containing glycolic acid on smear layer removal and chemical/mechanical properties of dentin. Sci Rep 2020;10:7313.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Thibault PK, Wlodarczyk J, Wenck A. A double-blind randomized clinical trial on the effectiveness of a daily glycolic acid 5% formulation in the treatment of photoaging. Dermatol Surg 1998;24:573-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Kakudo N, Kushida S, Suzuki K, Kusumoto K. Effects of glycolic acid chemical peeling on facial pigment deposition: Evaluation using novel computer analysis of digital-camera-captured images. J Cosmet Dermatol 2013;12:281-6.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Bello YD, Porsch HF, Farina AP, Souza MA, Silva EJ, Bedran-Russo AK, et al. Glycolic acid as the final irrigant in endodontics: Mechanical and cytotoxic effects. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2019;100:323-9.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
DaSilva L, Finer Y, Friedman S, Basrani B, Kishen A. Biofilm formation within the interface of bovine root dentin treated with conjugated chitosan and sealer containing chitosan nanoparticles. J Endod 2013;39:249-53.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Gurgel-Filho ED, Martins F. Comparative evaluation of push-out bond strength of a MTA based root canal sealer. Braz J Oral Sci 2014;13:114-7.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Kokkas AB, Boutsioukis AC, Vassiliadis LP, Stavrianos CK. The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: An in vitro study. J Endod 2004;30:100-2.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Teixeira CS, Alfredo E, Thomé LH, Gariba-Silva R, Silva-Sousa YT, Sousa-Neto MD. Adhesion of an endodontic sealer to dentin and gutta-percha: Shear and push-out bond strength measurements and SEM analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17:129-35.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Madhuri GV, Varri S, Bolla N, Mandava P, Akkala LS, Shaik J. Comparison of bond strength of different endodontic sealers to root dentin: An in vitro push-out test. J Conserv Dent 2016;19:461-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Torres FF, Zordan-Bronzel CL, Guerreiro-Tanomaru JM, Chávez-Andrade GM, Pinto JC, Tanomaru-Filho M. Effect of immersion in distilled water or phosphate-buffered saline on the solubility, volumetric change and presence of voids within new calcium silicate-based root canal sealers. Int Endod J 2020;53:385-91.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Balguerie E, van der Sluis L, Vallaeys K, Gurgel-Georgelin M, Diemer F. Sealer penetration and adaptation in the dentinal tubules: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2011;37:1576-9.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Atmeh AR, Chong EZ, Richard G, Festy F, Watson TF. Dentin-cement interfacial interaction: Calcium silicates and polyalkenoates. J Dent Res 2012;91:454-9.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Prüllage RK, Urban K, Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Material properties of a tricalcium silicate-containing, a mineral trioxide aggregate-containing, and an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer. J Endod 2016;42:1784-8.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Benetti F, Gomes-Filho JE, de Azevedo-Queiroz IO, Carminatti M, Conti LC, Dos Reis-Prado AH, et al. Biological assessment of a new ready-to-use hydraulic sealer. Restor Dent Endod 2021;46:e21.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Bello YD, Farina AP, Souza MA, Cecchin D. Glycolic acid: Characterization of a new final irrigant and effects on flexural strength and structural integrity of dentin. Mater Sci Eng C Mater Biol Appl 2020;106:110283.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Pimenta JA, Zaparolli D, Pécora JD, Cruz-Filho AM. Chitosan: Effect of a new chelating agent on the microhardness of root dentin. Braz Dent J 2012;23:212-7.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Antunes PV, Flamini LE, Chaves JF, Silva RG, Cruz Filho AM. Comparative effects of final canal irrigation with chitosan and EDTA. J Appl Oral Sci 2020;28:e20190005.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Mathew SP, Pai VS, Usha G, Nadig RR. Comparative evaluation of smear layer removal by chitosan and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid when used as irrigant and its effect on root dentine: An in vitro atomic force microscopic and energy-dispersive X-ray analysis. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:245-50.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
26.
Bayram HM, Bayram E, Kanber M, Celikten B, Saklar F. Effect of different chelating solutions on the push-out bond strength of various root canal sealers. Biomed Res 2017:S401-6.  Back to cited text no. 26
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Swathi Aravelli
Mallareddy Dental College for Women, Suraram, Hyderabad, Telangana
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_10_22

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed166    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded16    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal