PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
February 14, 2026Avicenna journal of dental research0 citationsOpen Access

Comparison of Marginal Adaptation Between Cold Ceramic Sealer and AH26 Sealer Using Scanning Electron Microscopy: An In Vitro Study

JMJalil ModaresiFAFatemeh AyatollahiShahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health ServicesEMErfan MahmoudianShahid Sadoughi University of Medical Sciences and Health Services

Key Points

  • The aim is to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation of CCS and AH26 sealer using SEM.
  • Twenty extracted maxillary central incisors were collected and disinfected.
  • Samples were decoronated and prepared with a crown-down technique.
  • Canals were obturated with either AH26 or CCS sealer.
  • Marginal adaptation was assessed using SEM after a 24-hour incubation period.
  • Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20 and the Mann-Whitney test.
  • The mean marginal gap for the AH26 group was 15.6±3.46 μm.
  • The mean marginal gap for the CCS group was 10.47±2.35 μm.
  • The CCS group showed significantly lower gaps in both apical and coronal sides compared to AH26 (P<0.05).

Abstract

Background: Cold ceramic (CC) is a bioceramic material used for root-end filling. A new bioceramic sealer derived from CC has recently been developed. This in vitro study was conducted to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation of an experimental bioceramic-based sealer (CC sealer: CCS) with that of an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH26 sealer) using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Methods: Twenty extracted human maxillary central incisors were collected, disinfected with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite, and stored in 0.9% saline. The teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction to obtain 13 mm roots. After cleaning and shaping the canals using the crown-down technique, the samples were randomly divided into two groups (n=10 each). In Group 1, canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer. In Group 2, canals were obturated with gutta-percha and the CCS. After 24 hours of incubation, a 2-mm-thick apical cross-section was prepared from each specimen, and marginal adaptation was assessed using SEM. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 20 and the Mann-Whitney test. Results: The mean marginal gap was 15.6±3.46 μm and 10.47±2.35 μm in the AH26 and CCS groups, respectively. The mean gap of the CCS group was significantly lower in the apical side and coronal side of the specimens compared to the AH26 sealer group (P<0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, CCS demonstrated significantly better marginal adaptation compared to AH26 under SEM evaluation. It is recommended that further clinical studies validate its performance in clinical settings.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Modaresi et al. (2025) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/699011032ccff479cfe57602https://doi.org/10.34172/ajdr.2381
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper