INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of QMix, BioPure MTAD, 17 % EDTA, and saline on the penetrability of a resin-based sealer into dentinal tubules using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) and to describe the cleaning of root canal walls by SEM. METHODS:Eighty distobuccal roots from upper molars were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 20) before root canal preparation according to the solution used in the final rinse protocol (FRP): QG (QMix), MG (BioPure MTAD), EG (17 % EDTA), and CG (control group: saline). Ten roots of each group were prepared for SEM, and images (×2000) from the canal walls were acquired. The remaining canals were filled with a single gutta-percha cone and AH Plus with 0.1 % Rhodamine B. The specimens were horizontally sectioned at 4 mm from the apex, and the slices were analyzed in CLSM (×10). Sealer penetration was analyzed with Adobe Photoshop software. RESULTS: QG and EG presented similar amounts of sealer penetration (P > .05). MG and CG presented the lowest penetrability values (P < .05). The best results for smear layer removal of the apical third of the root canal were achieved by the QG and EG groups when compared with MG and CG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Seventeen percent EDTA and QMix promoted sealer penetration superior to that achieved by BioPure MTAD and saline. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite studies have not confirmed the relationship between sealing ability of endodontic sealers and their penetration in dentinal tubules, sealer penetration assumes importance, since endodontic sealers, unlike gutta-percha, are able to penetrate in dentinal tubules, isthmus, and accessory canals, filling the root canal system.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the effect of QMix, BioPure MTAD, 17 % EDTA, and saline on the penetrability of a resin-based sealer into dentinal tubules using a confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) and to describe the cleaning of root canal walls by SEM. METHODS: Eighty distobuccal roots from upper molars were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 20) before root canal preparation according to the solution used in the final rinse protocol (FRP): QG (QMix), MG (BioPure MTAD), EG (17 % EDTA), and CG (control group: saline). Ten roots of each group were prepared for SEM, and images (×2000) from the canal walls were acquired. The remaining canals were filled with a single gutta-percha cone and AH Plus with 0.1 % Rhodamine B. The specimens were horizontally sectioned at 4 mm from the apex, and the slices were analyzed in CLSM (×10). Sealer penetration was analyzed with Adobe Photoshop software. RESULTS:QG and EG presented similar amounts of sealer penetration (P > .05). MG and CG presented the lowest penetrability values (P < .05). The best results for smear layer removal of the apical third of the root canal were achieved by the QG and EG groups when compared with MG and CG (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Seventeen percent EDTA and QMix promoted sealer penetration superior to that achieved by BioPure MTAD and saline. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Despite studies have not confirmed the relationship between sealing ability of endodontic sealers and their penetration in dentinal tubules, sealer penetration assumes importance, since endodontic sealers, unlike gutta-percha, are able to penetrate in dentinal tubules, isthmus, and accessory canals, filling the root canal system.
Entities:
Keywords:
Confocal laser scanning microscopy; Endodontics; Final irrigation solution; Root canal irrigant; Scanning electron microscopy; Smear layer
Authors: Mahmoud Torabinejad; Robert Handysides; Abbas Ali Khademi; Leif K Bakland Journal: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod Date: 2002-12
Authors: Daniela Kok; Marco Antônio Húngaro Duarte; Ricardo Abreu Da Rosa; Márcia Helena Wagner; Jefferson Ricardo Pereira; Marcus Vinícius Reis Só Journal: Microsc Res Tech Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 2.769
Authors: Laura Andriukaitiene; Xiaobo Song; Nannan Yang; Lippo V J Lassila; Pekka K Vallittu; Eero Kerosuo Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2018-12-13 Impact factor: 2.757