• Users Online: 29
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 21-24

Sealing ability of two adhesive sealers in root canals prepared with different rotary file systems


1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt; Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia
3 Interns, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia

Date of Submission01-Jul-2018
Date of Acceptance18-Oct-2018
Date of Web Publication13-Jun-2019

Correspondence Address:
Mohamed I Elshinawy
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, PO Box 3263, Abha 61471, Saudi Arabia

Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_24_18

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Aim
To evaluate the apical seal for two different adhesive sealers used with two different rotary systems.
Materials and methods
Forty extracted single-canaled premolars were cleaned, decoronated into equal length root specimens and randomly divided into two equal groups (n = 20). Root canals of root specimens in group 1 were prepared using iRace rotary files while those of group 2 were prepared using ProTaper Next files. Specimens of each group were further subdivided into two equal subgroups (n = 10). Specimens in subgroup 1 were obturated using bioceramic sealer while those of subgroup 2 were obturated using resin sealer. Microleakage test was conducted using dye penetration and longitudinal sectioning technique. Collected data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's comparison to stand over the difference between the tested subgroups at significance level of P value less than 0.5.
Results
There were no statistically significant difference between the tested subgroups and the sealers showed a comparable and satisfactory sealability.
Conclusion
Both bioceramic and resin sealers are comparable in their sealing ability when used for obturating root canals that were prepared with either iRace or ProTaper Next rotary files.

Keywords: adhesive sealers, rotary files, sealing ability


How to cite this article:
Elshinawy MI, Abdelaziz KM, Khawshhal AA, Alqisi AY, Al-Shari HH, Alsalhi IY. Sealing ability of two adhesive sealers in root canals prepared with different rotary file systems. Tanta Dent J 2019;16:21-4

How to cite this URL:
Elshinawy MI, Abdelaziz KM, Khawshhal AA, Alqisi AY, Al-Shari HH, Alsalhi IY. Sealing ability of two adhesive sealers in root canals prepared with different rotary file systems. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2021 Dec 7];16:21-4. Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/text.asp?2019/16/1/21/260275


  Introduction Top


Complete root canal debridement and obturation with apical and lateral hermetic seal are important criteria for successful endodontics[1],[2]. The introduction of nickel titanium files to the field of canal preparation led to the rise of too many systems, techniques, and materials for root canal preparation and obturation. The cleaning capacity of different NiTi rotary systems varies because of the different cross-sections and blade designs of each system[3]. Among the recently introduced NiTi systems for root canal cleaning and shaping are the ProTaper Next and iRace. ProTaper Next rotary file is made of the recently developed M-wire NiTi alloy with a rectangular cross-section, improved cyclic fatigue resistance, off-center axis, and variable tapers[4],[5]. iRace rotary files were claimed to be safe, fast, and effective in debris removal and maintains the original outline of curved canals[6].

Root canal sealer is an essential component of root canal obturation. One of the basic requirements of root canal sealers is bonding to both the core filling material and the canal wall promoting the formation of a monoblock obturation that enhances the hermetic seal of the canal[7]. Resin sealers have been used successfully over the last decade with very good apical sealing results and a high rate of success however they lack the chemical bond to either the canal wall or gutta percha[8]. Most recently, bioceramic-based sealers have been developed with a very promising properties regarding dimensional stability, chemical adhesive capabilities to both the root canal dentin and the newly introduced bioceramic coated gutta percha to promote the formation of a tertiary monoblock obturation and hence promoting better apical seal[9],[10].

Little is published in the literature regarding the impact of root canal cleaning and shaping techniques on the sealability of newly introduced sealers. The purpose of this study was therefore to compare the sealability of both bioceramic and resin sealers in root canals prepared using two different rotary file systems. The null hypothesis was: none of the canal preparation techniques has an impact on the sealability of both sealers.


  Materials and Methods Top


Forty freshly extracted human single-canalled premolars free from cracks or any developmental defects were collected from orthodontic private clinics, disinfected, and decoronated to standardize the remaining root length to 12 mm using a water-cooled diamond disc (Edenta AG, AU/SG, Switzerland). The resulting roots were then prepared in two groups (n = 20) using iRace (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chauxde-Fonds, Switzerland) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary file systems in G1 and G2, respectively. Each group of prepared root canals was then obturated in two subgroups (n = 10) using either bioceramic sealer (Total Fill BC sealer; FKG Dentaire SA) (SG1) or resin sealer (AH Plus; Dentsply Maillefer) (SG2) according to the protocol shown in [Table 1]. Root canal preparation and sealer application were done following the manufacturer's instruction for each product used. Root canal obturation was done using laterally condensed gutta percha (Sure-endo; SureDent Co. Ltd, Seoul, South Korea) for the iRace-prepared canals and single cone technique with the ProTaper Next gutta percha (Dentsply Maillefer) for the ProTaper Next prepared canals. After canal obturation the coronal opening of each canal was sealed with compoglass F (Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and the roots were then coated with two coats of nail polish leaving the apical 2 mm only uncoated.
Table 1 Root canal preparation and obturation protocols

Click here to view


After dryness of the nail polish the root apices of each subgroup were immersed in methylene blue dye (Sigma-Aldrich Inc., St Louis, Missouri, USA) for 48 h. The roots were then removed from the dye, rinsed in tap water to remove excess dye and the nail polish was then removed using scalpel blade. The roots were then sectioned longitudinally into halves using a diamond disc and a chisel. The root canal obturation was removed from root specimens and the maximum linear coronal extension of the apical dye leakage into the root canal was measured using a graduated ruler and a magnifying lens [Figure 1]. The collected data was subjected to statistical analysis on version 21.0, IBM SPSS statistics program (IBM Corp., Armonk, New York, USA) for Windows. Both one-way analysis of variance analysis and Tukey's comparison were used to stand on the significance of any differences detected between subgroups.
Figure 1: Different levels of the detected microleakage in different subgroups. (a) G1–SG1, (b) G1–SG2, (c) G2–SG1, (d) G2–SG2.

Click here to view



  Results Top


The mean dye penetration depth values are recorded in [Table 2]. The one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's pair-wise comparisons [Table 3] showed no significant differences between the microleakage values of the tested subgroups (P > 0.05). Both types of sealers exhibited a comparable microleakage values regardless the utilized root canal preparation system (P > 0.05).
Table 2 Mean±SD dye penetration depth values

Click here to view
Table 3 Tukey's comparison

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


One of the deal requirements of root canal sealers is the adhesion to both the root canal dentin and the core filling material of the root canal to obtain a monoblock obturation. This study was conducted to test the sealability of two types of adhesive sealers used with two different types of rotary file preparation techniques.

One of the sealers used was resin-based sealer and the other was a bioceramic-based sealer representing routinely and recently used adhesive sealer categories, respectively. The rotary file systems used were the ProTaper Next and the iRace rotary files. ProTaper Next files are made of the recently advanced M-wire NiTi alloy with a rectangular cross-section, variable tapers, and off-center axis and claimed to preserve the original shape of the root canal without apical transportation[5],[11],[12]. iRace files have triangular cross-section and alternating cutting edges. They have been developed to simplify the original Race system sequence thus securing a faster, effective, and safe instrumentation of the root canal respecting its anatomy and apical constriction[13],[14],[15].

Methylene blue dye was used for microleakage testing in this study because of its low molecular weight, water-solubility, hard tissue nonreactivity, and ease of detection in visible light[16],[17],[18],[19]. Longitudinal sectioning was also used as it enables direct detection of the extent and pattern of dye penetration[20].

The results of the current study showed comparable sealability for both resin and bioceramic sealers in root canals prepared with either ProTaper Next or iRace rotary files. These findings are in agreement with the results of Pawar et al.[20], who reported a comparable sealability between Endosequence BC bioceramic sealer and Real Seal SE self-etch resin sealer in canals prepared using Protaper rotary files and obturated by continuous wave condensation technique. Also, Zhang et al.[21], found an equivalent sealing ability of both resin and bioceramic sealers.

Both ProTaper Next and iRace files have shown comparable efficacy in root canal cleaning and shaping with almost no transportation of the apical constriction[22] and this can explain the comparable sealability results obtained for either of the sealers with both preparation groups in our study. On the other hand some other controversial studies revealed better adhesion[23] and sealing ability[24] of bioceramic sealer compared to the resin sealers. The difference in the results might be referred to difference in leakage testing method used with that used in our study. None of the tested sealers in the current study succeeded in total leakage prevention and this concurs with the results of previous studies that revealed the presence of micro-gaps in the apical third of canal obturated with either bioceramic or resin sealers[24]. These gaps might be due to several factors including air-bubble entrapment at the time of sealer application resulting from excessive dryness of the canal wall which interfere with the proper distribution of the hydrophilic bioceramic sealer to the canal wall[25]. Also contraction of the resin sealer might also be a contributing factor in microgap formation and hence the microleakage[26].


  Conclusion Top


Based on the findings of the current study it could be concluded that:

  1. Both bioceramic and resin sealers are comparable in their sealing ability when used for obturating root canals that were cleaned and shaped with either iRace or ProTaper Next rotary files
  2. A sealer that guarantees a total seal of obturated root canals yet to exist till today.


Recommendations

More efforts are still needed in the search for a cleaning and shaping/obturation complex that can provide a hermetic apical seal.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Miletic I, Anic I, Pezelj-Ribaric S, Jukic S. Leakage of five root canal sealers. Int Endod J 1999; 32:415–418.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
King KT, Anderson RW, Pashley DH, Pantera EA. Longitudinal evaluation of the seal of endodontic retrofillings. J Endod 1990; 16:307–310.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 2001; 14:324–333.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Shori DD, Shenoi PR, Baig AR, Kubde R, Makade C, Pandey S. Stereomicroscopic evaluation of dentinal defects induced by new rotary system: 'ProTaper NEXT'. J Conserv Dent 2015; 18:210–213.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
5.
Ye J, Gao Y. Metallurgical characterization of M-Wire nickel-titanium shape memory alloy used for endodontic rotary instruments during low-cycle fatigue. J Endod 2012; 38:105–107.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Saber S, Nagy M, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015; 48:131–136.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
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; 112:74–77.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Tyagi S, Mishra P, Tyagi P. Evolution of root canal sealers: an insight story. Eur J Gen Dent 2013; 2:99–218.  Back to cited text no. 8
  [Full text]  
9.
Koch K, Brave D, Nasseh AA. A review of bioceramic technology in endodontics. Roots 2013; 1:6–12.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Patil SA, Dodwad PK, Patil AA. An in vitro comparison of bond strengths of guttapercha/AH plus, resilon/epiphany self-etch and EndoREZ obturation system to intraradicular dentin using a push-out test design. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16:238–242.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Wu H, Peng C, Bai Y, Hu X, Wang L, Li C. Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal. WaveOne and ProTaper next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15:27.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Elnaghy A. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J 2014; 47:1034–1039.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2005; 31:373–375.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Bonaccorso A, Cantatore G, Condorelli GG, Schäfer E, Tripi TR. Shaping ability of four nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2009; 35:883–886.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2004; 37:239–248.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
De-Deus G, Coutinho-Filho T, Reis C, Murad C, Paciornik S. Polymicrobial leakage of four root canal sealers at two different thicknesses. J Endod 2006; 32:998–1001.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Kennedy WA, Walker III WA, Gough RW. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J Endod 1986; 12:21–27.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Matloff IR, Jensen JR, Singer L, Tabibi A. Comparison of methods used in root canal sealability studies. Oral Surg 1982; 53:203–208.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
De Moor RJ, De Boever JG. The sealing ability of an epoxy resin root canal sealer used with five Gutta-Percha obturation techniques. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000; 16:291–297.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Pawar SS, Pujar MA, Makandar SD. Evaluation of the apical sealing ability of bioceramic sealer, AH plus and epiphany: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17:579–582.  Back to cited text no. 20
  [Full text]  
21.
Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Assessment of a new root canal sealer's apical sealing ability. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radio Endod 2009; 107:79–82.  Back to cited text no. 21
    
22.
Alrahabi M. Shaping ability of several nickel-titanium systems in double-curved simulated canals. G Ital Endod 2017; 31:29–34.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.
Carrillo Varguez A, Santana Basoco BI, González Vizcarra B, Villarreal Gómez LJ, Jaramillo Fernández D, Rentería Aguilera N, Hofmann Salcedo ME. Comparative in vitro study of the bond strength on dentin of two sealing cements: BC-SEALER and AH-PLUS. Rev Mex Ing Bioméd 2016; 37:115–122.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.
Muharsya Y, Usman M, Suprastiwi E. Comparison sealability of root canal obturation using bioceramic sealer and methacrylate resin-based sealer. J Phys 2017; 884:012111.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.
Tay FR, Pashley DH. Monoblocks in root canals: a hypothetical or a tangible goal. J Endod 2007; 33:391–398.  Back to cited text no. 25
    
26.
Bergsman L, Moisiadis P. Effect of polymerization shrinkage in the sealing capacity of resin fillers for endodontic use. J Adhes Dent 2005; 7:321–329.  Back to cited text no. 26
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

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

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

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1588    
    Printed147    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded182    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]