Confocal microscopy assessment of filling material remaining on root canal walls after retreatment.

AIM: The percentage of Endofill remaining on canal walls after retreatment with different techniques was evaluated using confocal microscopy and qualitative analysis of the interface between the filling material/dentine. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-four root canals of incisors were prepared with ProTaper, filled with gutta-percha and Endofill mixed with 0.1% rhodamine B. The roots were thermocycled and distributed into groups according to the method of evaluation: GI - direct viewing (DV) and GII - operating microscope (OM) and according to the removal technique: A) ProTaper retreatment (PR), B) PR/xylol, C) ultrasound and D) ultrasound/xylol. The root canals were then refilled with gutta-percha and AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein and sectioned at 2, 4 and 6 mm from the apex. The percentage of remaining Endofill was analysed by confocal microscopy. Additionally, 16 roots were prepared with a ProTaper F5 instrument and were filled with Endofill + 0.1% rhodamine B/gutta-percha (negative control group) (n = 8), and the positive control group (n = 8) were filled with AH Plus with 0.1% fluorescein/gutta-percha. RESULTS: Three-way anova demonstrated differences in the method of evaluation, removal techniques and their interaction (P < 0.05). OM (26.15 ± 12.16%) had a smaller percentage of remaining sealer than DV (32.77 ± 14.47%). The Tukey's test revealed that ultrasound/xylol (15.77 ± 7.15%) led to lower percentages of remaining sealer, significantly different from the PR group (35.25 ± 13.63%), PR/xylol (33.03 ± 11.64%) and ultrasound (33.79 ± 11.71%), which were similar (P > 0.05). Qualitative analysis detected that ultrasound had lower remaining Endofill than PR, particularly when combined with xylol. Operating microscope resulted in lower residual sealer, regardless of the removal technique. CONCLUSIONS: None of the protocols was associated with complete removal of the filling material; however, the use of ultrasound/xylol under an OM provided better results.

Changes in the surface of four calcium silicate-containing endodontic materials and an epoxy resin-based sealer after a solubility test.

AIM: To compare the changes in the surface structure and elemental distribution, as well as the percentage of ion release, of four calcium silicate-containing endodontic materials with a well-established epoxy resin-based sealer, submitted to a solubility test. METHODOLOGY: Solubility of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA Fillapex, Sealapex and MTA-Angelus (MTA-A) was tested according to ANSI/ADA Specification 57. The deionized water used in the solubility test was submitted to atomic absorption spectrophotometry to determine and quantify Ca(2+), Na(+), K(+), Zn(2+), Ni(2+) and Pb(2+) ions release. In addition, the outer and inner surfaces of nonsubmitted and submitted samples of each material to the solubility test were analysed by means of scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy (SEM/EDX). Statistical analysis was performed by using one-way anova and Tukey's post hoc tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Solubility results, in percentage, sorted in an increasing order were -1.24 ± 0.19 (MTA-A), 0.28 ± 0.08 (AH Plus), 5.65 ± 0.80 (Sealapex), 14.89 ± 0.73 (MTA Fillapex) and 20.64 ± 1.42 (iRoot SP). AH Plus and MTA-A were statistically similar (P > 0.05), but different from the other materials (P < 0.05). High levels of Ca(2+) ion release were observed in all groups except AH Plus sealer. MTA-A also had the highest release of Na(2+) and K(+) ions. Zn(+2) ion release was observed only with AH Plus and Sealapex sealers. After the solubility test, all surfaces had morphological changes. The loss of matrix was evident and the filler particles were more distinguishable. EDX analysis displayed high levels of calcium and carbon at the surface of Sealapex, MTA Fillapex and iRoot SP. CONCLUSIONS: AH Plus and MTA-A were in accordance with ANSI/ADA's requirements regarding solubility whilst iRoot SP, MTA Fillapex and Sealapex did not fulfil ANSI/ADA's protocols. High levels of Ca(2+) ion release were observed in all materials except AH Plus. SEM/EDX analysis revealed that all samples had morphological changes in both outer and inner surfaces after the solubility test. High levels of calcium and carbon were also observed at the surface of all materials except AH Plus and MTA-A.

Push-out strength of methacrylate resin-based sealers to root canal walls.

AIM: To assess the push-out strength of Epiphany SE, Epiphany and Hybrid Root SEAL to the dentine walls of root canals. METHODOLOGY: Sixty roots of canines were prepared and distributed to six groups (n = 10) according to the filling material: GI - Epiphany SE, GII - Epiphany primer and sealer, GIII - Epiphany primer, sealer and resinous solvent, GIV - Clearfil DC Bond and Epiphany sealer, GV - Clearfil, Epiphany sealer and solvent and GVI - Hybrid Root SEAL. Resilon cones were used in all groups. Roots were sectioned transversally to obtain three slices from each third. One slice was subjected to the push-out test (MPa), and results were analysed by anova and Tukey's test (P < 0.05). The other two slices were prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Failure mode was also analysed. RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (P <0.05) occurred between Hybrid Root SEAL (5.27 +/- 2.07) and the other materials, GI (0.40 +/- 0.23), GII (0.78 +/- 0.45), GIII (0.57 +/- 0.28), GIV (0.40 +/- 0.24) and GV (0.50 +/- 0.41), which did not differ significantly from each other (P > 0.05). Adhesive failures predominated in groups I, II, IV and V, whilst mixed and cohesive failures were the most frequent in groups III and VI, respectively. There were gaps in the adhesive interface of GI and GII, continuity areas of the filling material with dentine in GIV and GV and good adaptation of the interface of GVI. CONCLUSION: Hybrid Root SEAL had greater push-out strength to root canal dentine than Epiphany SE and Epiphany. The use of primer, solvent and adhesive system did not influence the adhesion of Epiphany.