4.5 Article

Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo

Journal

INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
Volume 40, Issue 11, Pages 873-881

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01307.x

Keywords

AH26; EndoREZ; pulp canal sealer EWT; sealer cements; tubule penetration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To compare the depth and consistency of penetration of three different root canal sealer cements into dentinal tubules in extracted teeth and to measure the penetration of an epoxy resin-based sealer cement in vivo. Methodology Root canals of 50 extracted human pre-molar teeth were prepared and obturated using three different sealer cements based on epoxy resin (AH26), zinc oxide eugenol (Pulp Canal Sealer EWT) and methacrylate resin (EndoREZ). Five teeth filled without sealer were used as controls. Teeth were sectioned and prepared for observation using scanning electron microscopy. A further 12 teeth with a history of successful root filling and subsequent extraction were collected and sectioned. The depth of sealer penetration into dentinal tubules was measured and the consistency and appearance of the sealer within the tubules observed. Results AH26 demonstrated the deepest penetration (1337 mu m), followed by EndoREZ (863 mu m) and Pulp Canal Sealer EWT (71 mu m). The difference in penetration between all sealer groups was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.05). The resin-based sealers appeared to penetrate tubules more consistently. In the clinical cases, all teeth demonstrated sealer penetration to varying depths (98-1490 mu m). Conclusions The depth and consistency of dentinal tubule penetration of sealer cements appears to be influenced by the chemical and physical characteristics of the materials. Resin-based sealers displayed deeper and more consistent penetration. Penetration depths observed for the epoxy resin-based sealer in vivo were consistent with that found in the experimental model.

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