INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the effect of photoactivated disinfection (PAD) on the bond strength of root canal sealers to human root canal dentin using the push-out test. METHODS: Fifteen extracted human mandibular premolar teeth with single and straight roots were used. After the clinical crowns were removed from the cementoenamel junction, root canals were prepared with the ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary system to the size of the F3 file. The smear layer of the roots was removed using 17% EDTA followed by 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and distillate water. The roots were then randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 5) according to the final irrigation regimen. In group 1, PAD (FotoSan; CMS Dental, Copenhagen, Denmark) was applied to the root canals and light cured for 20 seconds. Group 2 was finally irrigated with a 2% solution of chlorhexidine gluconate, and group 3 served as the control group (NaOCl + EDTA). All the canals were then obturated with the lateral condensation technique using gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer (Dentsply Maillefer) sealer. One-millimeter-thick horizontal sections from the coronal and midthirds of each root (n: 5 × 4 = 20) were sliced for the push-out bond strength measurement. The data were converted to megapascals and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among the bond strength of PAD, chlorhexidine gluconate, and NaOCl (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PAD does not adversely affect the bond strength of the AH Plus sealer to root canal dentin and that it can be used for the final disinfection of root canals.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to assess and compare the effect of photoactivated disinfection (PAD) on the bond strength of root canal sealers to human root canal dentin using the push-out test. METHODS: Fifteen extracted human mandibular premolar teeth with single and straight roots were used. After the clinical crowns were removed from the cementoenamel junction, root canals were prepared with the ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary system to the size of the F3 file. The smear layer of the roots was removed using 17% EDTA followed by 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and distillate water. The roots were then randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 5) according to the final irrigation regimen. In group 1, PAD (FotoSan; CMS Dental, Copenhagen, Denmark) was applied to the root canals and light cured for 20 seconds. Group 2 was finally irrigated with a 2% solution of chlorhexidine gluconate, and group 3 served as the control group (NaOCl + EDTA). All the canals were then obturated with the lateral condensation technique using gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer (Dentsply Maillefer) sealer. One-millimeter-thick horizontal sections from the coronal and midthirds of each root (n: 5 × 4 = 20) were sliced for the push-out bond strength measurement. The data were converted to megapascals and statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: There was no significant difference among the bond strength of PAD, chlorhexidine gluconate, and NaOCl (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that PAD does not adversely affect the bond strength of the AH Plus sealer to root canal dentin and that it can be used for the final disinfection of root canals.