Literature DB >> 25386203

Push-Out Bond Strength of Dorifill, Epiphany and MTA-Fillapex Sealers to Root Canal Dentin with and without Smear Layer.

Mohammad Forough Reyhani1, Negin Ghasemi1, Saeed Rahimi2, Amin Salem Milani2, Hadi Mokhtari1, Sahar Shakouie1, Hossein Safarvand3.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present experimental study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of Dorifill, Epiphany and MTA-Fillapex sealers to root canal dentin in presence and absence of smear layer (SL). METHODS AND MATERIALS: Sixty human single-rooted teeth were selected and divided into six groups (n=10). The canal irrigation protocol in groups 1, 3 and 5 consisted of 2.5% NaOCl during instrumentation and normal saline at the end of preparation plus a 5-min irrigation with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). In the remaining groups, normal saline was used for canal irrigation. The root canals were filled with Epiphany/Resilon (groups 1 and 2), Dorifill/gutta-percha (groups 3 and 4) and MTA-Fillapex/gutta-percha (groups 5 and 6). After two weeks of storage in 95% relative humidity at 37(º)C, 2 mm-thick dentin disks were prepared from coronal third of each root. The push-out bond strength test was carried out using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with the two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey's tests. Statistical significance was defined at 0.05.
RESULTS: The highest (3.06±0.38 MPa) and lowest (1.16±0.32 MPa) push-out bond strength values were recorded in Epiphany/Resilon-NaOCl/EDTA and Dorifill/gutta-percha/normal saline groups, respectively. There were significant differences in the bond strength of sealers (P<0.05). In addition, elimination of the SL significantly increased the bond strength of all sealers (P<0.05).
CONCLUSION: The Epiphany/Resilon group exhibited the highest push-out bond strength in the presence and absence of the SL. Elimination of the SL resulted in a significant increase in the bond strength of all the sealers to dentin.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Dorifill; Epiphany Sealer; MTA-Fillapex; Push-Out Bond Strength; Root Canal; Smear Layer

Year:  2014        PMID: 25386203      PMCID: PMC4224760     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Iran Endod J        ISSN: 1735-7497


Introduction

Adhesion to dentin is an essential property for root canal sealers [1-3]; and higher bond strength decreases leakage and improves the stability of root canal obturation material [1]. The adhesion properties of sealers to dentin might be different due to various reasons, including differences in root dentin structure between the samples or even between the different parts of the same sample, presence or absence of the smear layer (SL), the chemical composition of the sealer and its reaction with the dentin [4-6]. Various tests have been used to evaluate the bond strength, which include shear-bond strength, microtensile, pull-out and push-out tests [1]. Microtensile and push-out tests make it possible to measure the bond strength in different parts of the root canal and also to evaluate the differences in bonding in these different root segments. However, it is very difficult to prepare samples for microtensile test as they may fracture before the test. On the other hand, the push-out bond strength test does not have the limitations of microtensile test and therefore the results are more accurate and reliable [7-9]. One of the most important issues in evaluating the bond strength of materials to root canal dentin is the effect of SL on the adhesion of sealers. Based on the majority of reports, the bond strength to root dentin decreases in the presence of SL, irrespective of the type of the sealer [10]. A large number of sealers are being used with different chemical compositions, including zinc oxide-eugenol (ZOE)-based sealers such as Dorifill (DR; Dorident Company, Vienna, Austria) [11]. Resin sealers such as Epiphany (EP; Pentron Clinical Technologies, Wallingford, CT, USA) are from newer generations and are capable of forming a bond with dentin and the core material; the so-called mono-block [12, 13]. Recently, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)-based sealers have been introduced in order to achieve biologic properties and a proper seal with MTA. One of these sealers is MTA-Fillapex (MF; Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) which is presented in the form of two pastes and apart from MTA, its chemical composition contains resins, bismuth oxide, silica nanoparticles and dyes. This sealer has high sealing ability, bactericidal effect and biocompatibility. Other properties of this sealer include radiopacity, low solubility and low setting expansion [14, 15]. Only a limited number of studies have evaluated the bonding ability of this sealer. Therefore, the aim of the present laboratory study was to evaluate the push-out bond strength of MF (MTA-based sealer), EP (resin-based sealer) and DR (ZOE-based sealer) to root dentin in the presence and absence of the SL.

Methods and Materials

Sixty human maxillary central incisors were included in the present study. The inclusion criteria consisted of teeth with only one root canal, absence of previous root canal treatment, and absence of any carious lesions. All of the attached soft tissues were removed from the tooth surfaces with a periodontal curette (Hu-Friedy, Chicago, IL, USA) and the teeth were stored in 0.5% chloramine-T solution until the time of study. The tooth crowns were removed at cementoenamel junction (CEJ) level using a diamond disk (SP 1600 Microtome, Leica, Nu Block, Germany) and the working length (WL) was determined at 1 mm short of the apical foramen with a #15 K-file (Dentsply Mailefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The root canals were prepared using the crown-down technique with RaCe rotary system as follows: #40/0.10 and # 35/0.08 for the coronal third, #30/0.06 for the middle third and #25/0.06 for preparation up to the WL. The samples were divided into 6 groups based on the irrigation protocol and the root canal obturation material. In groups 1, 3 and 5 the irrigation protocol consisted of 2.5% NaOCl solution during instrumentation and a final flush with normal saline at the end of preparation procedures, followed by a 5-min use of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (Pulpdent Corporation, Watertown, MA, USA). In the remaining groups, the irrigation was done with normal saline. After preparation, the root canals were dried with paper points and obturated using lateral compaction technique, as follows: groups 1 (EP-RE 1) and 2 (EP-RE 2) with Epiphany sealer and Resilon points; groups 3 (DR-GP 3) and 4 (DR-GP 4) with gutta-percha and Dorifill sealer ; and groups 5 (MF-GP 5) and 6 (MF-GP 6) with gutta-percha and MTA-Fillapex sealer . In groups 1 and 2, before placing the Resilon points in the root canals, a primer (Epiphany Primer; Pentron Clinical Technologies LLC, Wallingford, CT, USA) was placed on the canal walls with a paper point according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Light-curing was carried out at canal orifices for 40 sec at the end of canal obturation. After completion of the obturation procedures, the quality of root canal filling was evaluated by radiographies. The samples were stored at 95% relative humidity and 37ºC. Then 2 mm-thick disks were prepared from the coronal third of root canals, using a diamond saw (SP 1600 Microtome; Leica, Nu Block, Germany). Push-out test was carried out in a universal testing machine (Hounsfield Test Equipment, Model H5K-S, Surrey, England). The force was applied in the apico-cervical direction of the samples at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The maximum force (F) applied at bond failure was recorded in Newton. The push-out bond strength was calculated in MPa according to the following formula: δ=F/2πr×h (with π=3.14, r being the radius of the root canal and h being the thickness of the disk sample in mm) [16]. The two-way ANOVA test was used to evaluate the significance of differences between the sealer type and irrigation protocol. The post hoc Tukey’s test was used for the two-by-two comparison of sealers’ resistance to displacement. The SPSS software (SPSS version 18.0, SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA) was used for data analysis and statistical significance was set at 0.05.

Results

Descriptive analysis of data showed the highest and lowest bond strength values in group EP-RE 1 (NaOCl-EDTA) and group DR-GP 4 (normal saline), respectively (Table 1). The presence and absence of SL and the sealer type had a significant effect on bond strength (P=0.03 and 0.01, respectively). The EP-RE 1 and EP-RE 2 groups exhibited the highest resistance to displacement irrespective of the type of irrigation solution, whereas DR-GP 1 and DR-GP 2 groups showed the least resistance. Irrespective of the sealer type, the mean bond strength to dentin after irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl+17% EDTA was higher than irrigation with normal saline solution.
Table1

Mean (SD) of bond strength values for different sealers (EP=Epiphany, MF=MTA-Fillapex, DR=Dorifill)

Irrigation protocol Mean (SD)
EP MF DR
2.5% NaOCl+17% EDTA 3.06 (0.38)1.98 (0.26)1.26 (0.37)
Normal saline 2.03 (0.37)1.59 (0.33)1.16 (0.32)
Mean (SD) of bond strength values for different sealers (EP=Epiphany, MF=MTA-Fillapex, DR=Dorifill) The post hoc Tukey’s test showed significant differences between the three sealers (P=0.01), with higher mean bond strength belonging to EP compared to other two sealers and with higher bond strength with MF compared to DR sealer.

Discussion

The present study compared the push-out bond strength of three root canal sealers to root dentin in absence and presence of the SL. The sealer type and the presence of the SL had significant effects on the bond strength. The bond strength values in descending order were recorded as EP, MF and DR groups and elimination of the SL with an irrigation protocol of 2.5% NaOCl+17% EDTA had a significant positive effect on increasing the resistance to displacement. There are different techniques to measure the bond strength of materials and push-out test is one of the most reliable methods based on the results of previous studies. In this test the conditions are comparable to clinical conditions, in which the tested items are directly placed within prepared canals with normal tubular configuration and organization [17-19]. Adhesion to root dentin is one of the necessary characteristics of root canal sealers for two reasons: the superior seal which in turn results in less coronal and apical leakage [2], and preventing the displacement of the filling material during restorative procedures [18]. One of the factors affecting the adhesion characteristics of sealers is their chemical composition. The eugenol content of the ZOE-based sealers is chelated with the zinc oxide present in GP. In addition, this reaction can also take place with the calcium phase of dentin [6, 11]. Methacrylate-based resin sealers adhere to both the root dentin and the filling material, and this can effectively seal the root canal by penetration of resin tags into the dentinal tubules that bond with the collagen matrix [20, 21]. MTA-based sealers are based on resin salicylate and calcium silicate base. Considering the chemical composition, it is expected that there should be some similarities in bond strength to dentin between resin sealers and MTA-based sealers. Higher bond strength of this sealer compared to DR might be attributed to such similarities [22-24]. Moreover, Sarkar et al. [24] showed that release of calcium and hydroxyl ions from the set sealer results in the formation of apatite which comes into contact with fluids containing phosphate. Reyes-Carmona et al. [25] also reported that the apatite formed by MTA and phosphate salts, is deposited among collagen fibrils, resulting in a controlled increase in the formation of inorganic nucleations on the dentin, which are seen as an interfacial layer with tag-like structures. In this study the lower bond strength of MF, compared to EP, might be attributed to the lower adhesion capacity of these tag-like structures. This is consistent with the results reported by Nagas et al. [26] and Amin et al. [27]. In the present study, the EP-RE 1 and EP-RE 2 groups were more resistant to displacement compared to the DR-GP 3 and DR-GP 4 groups, which is in line with the results of studies by Sagsen et al. [28], Pecora et al. [29] and Barbizam et al. [30]. Based on these studies, the higher bond strength of resin-based sealers (EP), compared to ZOE-based sealers (DR), can be attributed to the resin base that causes better and homogeneous penetration into tubules and bonding with the collagen matrix. Therefore, a higher mechanical retention is achieved between the sealer and root dentin, denoting better adhesion. Another finding of the present study was the effect of the SL on bond strength. Based on the results of previous studies the most effective technique to remove the SL is the use of NaOCl and EDTA [31-35]. The results of the present study showed that irrespective of the type of the sealer used, the bond strength to dentin increased in all the groups with SL removal which is consistent with the results of the previous studies [1, 27, 32, 36, 37]. Electron microscopic evaluations have shown that removal of the SL results in the exposure of dentinal tubules and creation of an irregular surface [4]. Penetration of sealer into the dentinal tubules and surface irregularities improve the retention mechanism of sealers to root canal walls, especially with resin-based sealers [7, 33-35]. In this study the samples with SL exhibited the lowest bond strength values, which might be attributed to the presence of the SL on the surface of dentin. These findings emphasize that the presence of SL has a negative impact on the adhesion of sealer to dentin because it produces an interfacial layer between the sealer and dentin, which interferes with penetration of sealer into the dentinal tubules and formation of sealer tags; therefore, adhesion is compromised under micromechanical forces [38-40]. However, the findings reported by Gopikrishna et al. [41] on ZOE-based sealers are not consistent with these findings because they reported no significant differences in the bond strength of these sealers to dentin in the presence/absence of the SL, which might be attributed to the use of shear test instead of push-out test.

Conclusion

The results of the present experimental study showed higher bond strength in the Epiphany/Resilon system compared to MTA-Fillapex and Dorifill. In addition, removal of the smear layer increased the resistance to displacement of root filling materials.
  41 in total

1.  The adhesion between fiber posts and root canal walls: comparison between microtensile and push-out bond strength measurements.

Authors:  Cecilia Goracci; Andrea Urbano Tavares; Andrea Fabianelli; Francesca Monticelli; Ornella Raffaelli; Paulo Capel Cardoso; Franklin Tay; Marco Ferrari
Journal:  Eur J Oral Sci       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 2.612

2.  Correlation between sealer penetration and microleakage following the use of MTAD as a final irrigant.

Authors:  Jamileh Ghoddusi; Fatemeh Dibaji; Sara Marandi
Journal:  Aust Endod J       Date:  2010-09-01       Impact factor: 1.659

3.  Evaluation of the effect of MTAD in comparison with EDTA when employed as the final rinse on the shear bond strength of three endodontic sealers to dentine.

Authors:  Velayutham Gopikrishna; Nagendrababu Venkateshbabu; Jogikalmat Krithikadatta; Deivanayagam Kandaswamy
Journal:  Aust Endod J       Date:  2010-10-24       Impact factor: 1.659

4.  Push-out strength and SEM evaluation of resin composite bonded to internal cervical dentin.

Authors:  J M Patierno; F A Rueggeberg; R W Anderson; R N Weller; D H Pashley
Journal:  Endod Dent Traumatol       Date:  1996-10

5.  The effect of prior calcium hydroxide intracanal placement on the bond strength of two calcium silicate-based and an epoxy resin-based endodontic sealer.

Authors:  Suzan Abdul Wanees Amin; Reham Saeed Seyam; Mohammed Abbas El-Samman
Journal:  J Endod       Date:  2012-03-22       Impact factor: 4.171

6.  Mineral trioxide aggregate but not light-cure mineral trioxide aggregate stimulated mineralization.

Authors:  João Eduardo Gomes-Filho; Max Dougals de Faria; Pedro Felício Estrada Bernabé; Mauro Juvenal Nery; José Arlindo Otoboni-Filho; Eloi Dezan-Júnior; Mariana Machado Teixeira de Moraes Costa; Mark Cannon
Journal:  J Endod       Date:  2008-01       Impact factor: 4.171

7.  Fracture resistance of roots endodontically treated with a new resin filling material.

Authors:  Fabricio B Teixeira; Erica C N Teixeira; Jeffrey Y Thompson; Martin Trope
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 3.634

8.  Dislocation resistance of ProRoot Endo Sealer, a calcium silicate-based root canal sealer, from radicular dentine.

Authors:  B P Huffman; S Mai; L Pinna; R N Weller; C M Primus; J L Gutmann; D H Pashley; F R Tay
Journal:  Int Endod J       Date:  2009-01       Impact factor: 5.264

9.  Effect of smear layer on the push-out bond strength of two different compositions of white mineral trioxide aggregate.

Authors:  Mehrdad Lotfi; Saeed Rahimi; Negin Ghasemi; Sepideh Vosoughhosseini; Mahmood Bahari; Mohammad Ali Saghiri; Atabak Shahidi
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2013-10-07

Review 10.  Resilon: a comprehensive literature review.

Authors:  Mehrdad Lotfi; Negin Ghasemi; Saeed Rahimi; Sepideh Vosoughhosseini; Mohammad Ali Saghiri; Atabak Shahidi
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2013-08-30
View more
  21 in total

1.  A Comparative Study of the Quality of Apical Seal in Resilon/Epiphany SE Following Intra canal Irrigation With 17% EDTA, 10% Citric Acid, And MTAD as Final Irrigants - A Dye Leakage Study Under Vacuum.

Authors:  Saravana Karthikeyan Balasubramanian; Vidya Saraswathi; Nidambur Vasudev Ballal; Shashi Rashmi Acharya; J Sivakumar Sampath; Sandeep Singh
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2017-02-01

2.  Ability of Calcium Silicate and Epoxy Resin-based Sealers to Fill the Artificial Lateral Canals in the Presence or Absence of Smear Layer.

Authors:  Amin Salem Milani; Sepideh Kuzegari; Vahid Zand; Hadi Mokhtari; Mahdi Rahbar
Journal:  Maedica (Bucur)       Date:  2021-09

3.  Cytotoxicity of two resin-based sealers and a fluoride varnish on human gingival fibroblasts.

Authors:  Masoud Parirokh; Farshid Reza Forghani; Hamzeh Paseban; Saeed Asgary; Sara Askarifard; Saeed Esmaeeli Mahani
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2015-03-18

4.  Retreatability of Root Canals Obturated Using Gutta-Percha with Bioceramic, MTA and Resin-Based Sealers.

Authors:  Emel Uzunoglu; Zeliha Yilmaz; Derya Deniz Sungur; Emre Altundasar
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2015-03-18

5.  Evaluation of apical leakage in root canals obturated with three different sealers in presence or absence of smear layer.

Authors:  Hadi Mokhtari; Shahriar Shahi; Maryam Janani; Mohammad Frough Reyhani; Hamid Reza Mokhtari Zonouzi; Saeed Rahimi; Hamid Reza Sadr Kheradmand
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2015-03-18

6.  Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal Using Isolated or Interweaving EDTA with Sodium Hypochlorite.

Authors:  Ângelo José da Silva Beraldo; Rogério Vieira Silva; Alberto Nogueira da Gama Antunes; Frank Ferreira Silveira; Eduardo Nunes
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2017

7.  The Effect of Preparation Size on Efficacy of Smear Layer Removal; A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.

Authors:  Mehdi Tabrizizadeh; Ameneh Shareghi
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2015-07-01

8.  Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Residual Smear Layer Following Preparation of Curved Root Canals Using Hand Instrumentation or Two Engine-Driven Systems.

Authors:  Abbasali Khademi; Masoud Saatchi; Mohammad Mehdi Shokouhi; Badri Baghaei
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2015

9.  Effect of Different Endodontic Sealers on the Push-out Bond Strength of Fiber Posts.

Authors:  Mohammad Forough Reyhani; Negin Ghasemi; Saeed Rahimi; Amin Salem Milani; Elnaz Omrani
Journal:  Iran Endod J       Date:  2016-03-20

10.  Comparison of bond strength of different endodontic sealers to root dentin: An in vitro push-out test.

Authors:  G Vijaya Madhuri; Sujana Varri; Nagesh Bolla; Pragna Mandava; Lakshmi Swathi Akkala; Jaheer Shaik
Journal:  J Conserv Dent       Date:  2016 Sep-Oct
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.