This website might not be available on Saturday, 21 September 2019, between 08:00 IRST and 18:00 IRST, due to maintenance.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12(4):294-298.
doi: 10.15171/joddd.2018.046
PMID: 30774797
PMCID: PMC6368950
  Abstract View: 287
  PDF Download: 263
  Full Text View: 164

Original Article

Evaluation of dentinal tubule penetration depth and push-out bond strength of AH 26, BioRoot RCS, and MTA Plus root canal sealers in presence or absence of smear layer

Sevinç Aktemur Türker 1 * ORCiD, Emel Uzunoğlu 2, Nuhan Purali 3

1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey
3 Department of Biophysics, Faculty of Medicine, Hacettepe University, Sıhhiye, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract

Background.This study compared the effect of smear layer on the penetration depth and push-out bond strength of various root canal sealers.

Methods.A total of 90 extracted human mandibular premolars were assigned into 2 groups: smear layer preserved and smear layer removed. Then the roots were further divided into 3 subgroups according to the sealer tested: AH 26, BioRoot RCS and MTA Plus. Obturation was performed with gutta-percha and the relevant sealer was mixed with 0.1% rhodamine B. Three 1-mm-thick slices were obtained from the mid-third area of each root. Two slices were selected for the push-out test and the remaining slice was used to calculate the dentinal tubule penetration depth and percentage.

Results.The retention of MTA Plus and BioRoot RCS was higher than that of AH 26 when the smear layer was preserved (P<0.05). BioRoot RCS showed the lowest penetration depth when the smear layer was removed (P<0.05).

Conclusion.Dentinal tubule penetration of root canal sealers had a limited effect on their adhesion to root canal wall.

First name
 
Last name
 
Email address
 
Comments
 
Security code


Article Viewed: 287

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Downloaded: 263

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


Full Text Viewed: 164

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 03 Aug 2018
Accepted: 04 Dec 2018
First published online: 26 Dec 2018
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - FireFox Plugin)