AIM: To examine the dislocation resistance of three root canal sealers from radicular dentine with and without immersion in a simulated body fluid (SBF), using a modified push-out test design that produced simulated canal spaces of uniform dimensions under identical cleaning and shaping conditions. METHODOLOGY: Sixty single-rooted caries-free human canine teeth were used. Standardized simulated canal spaces were created using 0.04 taper ProFile instruments along the coronal, middle and apical thirds of longitudinal tooth slabs. Following NaOCl/ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid cleaning, the cavities were filled with ProRoot Endo Sealer, AH Plus Jet or Pulp Canal Sealer. After setting, half of the cavities were tested with a fibre-optic light-illuminated push-out testing device. The rest were immersed in SBF for 4 weeks before push-out evaluation. Failure modes were examined with stereomicroscopy and field emission (FE)-scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: Location of the sealer-filled cavities did not affect push-out strengths. ProRoot Endo Sealer exhibited higher push-out strengths than the other two sealers particularly after SBF storage (P < 0.001). Failure modes were predominantly adhesive and mixed for Pulp Canal Sealer and AH Plus Jet, and predominantly cohesive for ProRoot Endo Sealer. Spherical amorphous calcium phosphate-like phases that spontaneously transformed into apatite-like phases were seen in the fractured specimens of ProRoot Endo Sealer after SBF storage. CONCLUSIONS: When tested in bulk without a main core, both 'sealer type' and 'SBF storage' were significant in affecting push-out results. The ProRoot Endo Sealer demonstrated the presence of spherical amorphous calcium phosphate-like phases and apatite-like phases (i.e. ex vivo bioactivity) after SBF storage.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Huffman et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched one closely related paper. Consider it for comparative context: