PURPOSE: To investigate whether the placement of a methacrylate root canal sealer or a conventional epoxy root canal sealer in two steps increases their dislocation resistance when compared to a one-step placement procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty single-rooted teeth were randomly allocated to 4 groups (n=20). All canals were instrumented to size 40, 0.06 taper and irrigated according to a standardized protocol. Root canal filling was conducted as follows: group 1: methacrylate sealer placed in two steps; group 2: methacrylate sealer placed in one step; group 3: epoxy sealer placed in two steps; group 4: epoxy sealer placed in one step. After setting, thin slices at different root levels were obtained and submitted to push-out testing. RESULTS were analyzed with non-parametric tests to compare the two-step procedures to their one-step counterparts. Failure modes were determined by stereomicroscopy. Random untested methacrylate sealer specimens were also examined with scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: At each root level, dislocation resistance was significantly higher for the two-step procedure than for the one-step procedure using the methacrylate sealer (p=0.003, p=0.005, p<0.001) but not the epoxy sealer (p=0.83, p=0.1, p=0.06). Among root levels, there were no significant differences in dislocation resistance in the methacrylate sealer two-step group, while all other groups showed differences. CONCLUSION: A two-step placement procedure resulted in significantly higher dislocation resistance for the methacrylate sealer but not for the epoxy sealer.
PURPOSE: To investigate whether the placement of a methacrylate root canal sealer or a conventional epoxy root canal sealer in two steps increases their dislocation resistance when compared to a one-step placement procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty single-rooted teeth were randomly allocated to 4 groups (n=20). All canals were instrumented to size 40, 0.06 taper and irrigated according to a standardized protocol. Root canal filling was conducted as follows: group 1: methacrylate sealer placed in two steps; group 2: methacrylate sealer placed in one step; group 3: epoxy sealer placed in two steps; group 4: epoxy sealer placed in one step. After setting, thin slices at different root levels were obtained and submitted to push-out testing. RESULTS were analyzed with non-parametric tests to compare the two-step procedures to their one-step counterparts. Failure modes were determined by stereomicroscopy. Random untested methacrylate sealer specimens were also examined with scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: At each root level, dislocation resistance was significantly higher for the two-step procedure than for the one-step procedure using the methacrylate sealer (p=0.003, p=0.005, p<0.001) but not the epoxy sealer (p=0.83, p=0.1, p=0.06). Among root levels, there were no significant differences in dislocation resistance in the methacrylate sealer two-step group, while all other groups showed differences. CONCLUSION: A two-step placement procedure resulted in significantly higher dislocation resistance for the methacrylate sealer but not for the epoxy sealer.