Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May 6:2021:6617930.
doi: 10.1155/2021/6617930. eCollection 2021.

Push-Out Bond Strength, Characterization, and Ion Release of Premixed and Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealers with or without Gutta-Percha

Cristina Retana-Lobo  1 , Mario Tanomaru-Filho  2 , Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru  2 , Marianella Benavides-García  1 , Erick Hernández-Meza  1 , Jessie Reyes-Carmona  1
Affiliations

Push-Out Bond Strength, Characterization, and Ion Release of Premixed and Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealers with or without Gutta-Percha

Cristina Retana-Lobo et al. Scanning. .

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the push-out bond strength of premixed and powder-liquid bioceramic sealers with or without gutta-percha (GP) cone.

Materials and methods: Radicular dentin samples were prepared from 80 single-rooted human teeth. After root canal preparation using ProTaper® and irrigation with NaOCl and EDTA, teeth were divided according to the root canal sealer (n = 20): AH Plus®, EndoSequence® BC Sealer™, ProRoot® Endo Sealer, and BioRoot™ RCS. Samples were randomly divided into two subgroups (n = 10): GP-S: root canal filling using the single-cone technique, or S: filling with only sealer. Specimens were kept at 37°C and 100% humidity in calcium-free PBS for 30 days. The push-out bond strength was measured in MPa. Fractured specimens were observed at 25x to evaluate the type of failure. pH and calcium ion release were measured at different experimental periods. Raman and SEM-EDAX analyses were performed for root canal sealers. Data were analysed using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey test at a significance of P < 0.05.

Results: Push-out bond strength was greater for samples obturated with only sealers (S) than samples obturated with the single-cone technique (GP-S) (P < 0.05). BioRoot™ RCS had greater bond strength than EndoSequence® BC Sealer™. Adhesive failures between cement and gutta-percha cone (87.5%) were predominant in the GP-S. Cohesive failures were predominant for S (80%). BioRoot™ RCS and ProRoot® ES presented higher alkalinization potential than the premixed sealer (EndoSequence® BC Sealer™). Powder-liquid bioceramic sealers (BioRoot™ RCS and ProRoot® ES) released the highest cumulative amount of calcium (28.46 mg/L and 20.05 mg/L).

Conclusion: Push-out test without gutta-percha cone presents higher bond strength for bioceramic sealers. Powder-liquid calcium silicate-based sealers present greater bioactivity related to alkalinization potential and calcium ion release.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this paper.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Push-out bond strength values (MPa) for the experimental sealers using the sealer only (S) and the GP core and sealer (GP-S).
Figure 2
Figure 2
Alkalizing activity. pH profiles of the solutions. All the calcium silicate-based sealers showed a rapid initial rise, on day 3 followed by a decline on day 30. Control group and epoxy resin-based sealer remained near 7.2. AP: AH Plus™; ES: EndoSequence® BC Sealer™; PR: ProRoot® ES; BR: BioRoot™ RCS.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Average micro-Raman spectra: (a) Raman spectra obtained from AH Plus™; (b) EndoSequence® BC Sealer™; (c) ProRoot® ES, square area showed the amplified zone overlapped by the intensity of the bismuth oxide signals; (d) BioRoot™ RCS.
Figure 4
Figure 4
EDAX spectrum for (a) AH Plus™, (b) EndoSequence® BC Sealer™, (c) ProRoot® ES, and (d) BioRoot™ RCS.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Representative photomicrograph of canals filled with calcium silicate-based cements and a GP core, single cone technique (a, c, e, g). Interface between the sealer (arrow), GP (∗), and dentin (b, d, f, h).
Figure 6
Figure 6
Representative photomicrographs of canals filled with only calcium silicate-based cements (a, d, g). Interface between the sealer and dentine (b, e, h) and photomicrograph of the sealers at high magnification (c, f, i). Interface between epoxy resin-based sealer AH Plus™ and dentin (j, k, l) and resin tags at higher magnification.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Donnermeyer D., Dornseifer P., Schäfer E., Dammaschke T. The push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers. Head & Face Medicine. 2018;14(1):13–17. doi: 10.1186/s13005-018-0170-8. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Zordan-Bronzel C. L., Esteves Torres F. F., Tanomaru-Filho M., Chávez-Andrade G. M., Bosso-Martelo R., Guerreiro-Tanomaru J. M. Evaluation of physicochemical properties of a new calcium silicate-based sealer, Bio-C sealer. Journal of Endodontics. 2019;45(10):1248–1252. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.07.006. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Camilleri J., Gandolfi M. G., Siboni F., Prati C. Dynamic sealing ability of MTA root canal sealer. International Endodontic Journal. 2011;44(1):9–20. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01774.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Asawaworarit W., Yachor P., Kijsamanmith K., Vongsavan N. Comparison of the apical sealing ability of calcium silicate-based sealer and resin-based sealer using the fluid-filtration technique. Medical Principles and Practice. 2016;25(6):561–565. doi: 10.1159/000450577. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Barbizam J. V. B., Trope M., Tanomaru-Filho M., Teixeira E. C. N., Teixeira F. B. Bond strength of different endodontic sealers to dentin: push-out test. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2011;19(6):644–647. doi: 10.1590/S1678-77572011000600017. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources