4.5 Article

Push-out Bond Strength of Injectable Pozzolan-based Root Canal Sealer

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 42, Issue 11, Pages 1656-1659

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.08.009

Keywords

MTA; pozzolan; push-out; root canal obturation; root canal sealer

Funding

  1. FAPERJ [E-26/201.491/2014, E-26/010.001243/2015]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction:. The present study aimed to rank the bond strength to root dentin of a new injectable pozzolan-based root canal sealer, EndoSeal MTA, as compared with MTA Fillapex and AH Plus. Methods: Eighteen dentinal slices (1 +/- 0.1 mm) were obtained from the middle third of 6 maxillary incisors previously selected. Three canal-like holes with 0.8 mm diameter were drilled perpendicularly on the axial surface of each slice. Then, a standardized irrigation was applied for all holes that were subsequently filled with 1 of 3 test root canal sealers. After that, slices were stored in contact with phosphate-buffered saline solution (pH. 7.2) for 7 days at 37 degrees C before the push-out assay. Friedman test and Wilcoxon signed rank test with a Bonfer-roni correction were used to rank the results. Significance boundary was set at alpha = 5%. Results: Friedman test confirmed a significant dissimilarity in push-out ranks among the tested cements (P < .01). Wilcoxon signed rank test demonstrated AH Plus had significant superior resistance to dislodgment compared with Endo Seal (P < .01) or MTA Fillapex (P < .01), whereas MTA Fillapex presented the lowest push-out values as compared with Endo Seal (P < .01) or AH Plus (P < .01). Conclusions: EndoSeal presents satisfactory bond strength performance for application in endodontic therapy compared with MTA Fillapex, and although it displays a new alternative of injectable bio-tight root canal sealer, it is not able to improve adhesion compared with AH Plus.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available