Citation Information :
Patri G, Agrawal P, Anushree N, Arora S, Kunjappu JJ, Shamsuddin SV. A Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis of Sealing Potential and Marginal Adaptation of Different Root Canal Sealers to Dentin: An In Vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (1):73-77.
Aim: The present study aimed to evaluate the sealing potential and marginal adaptation of different root canal sealers to dentin. Materials and methods: A total of sixty human lower premolars of the permanent dentition that were extracted were used for this study. The visible debris and calculus were removed from the extracted teeth ultrasonically and were kept for 2 hours in 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and stored in normal saline till next use. A low-speed diamond disc was used to section all the teeth samples at the cementoenamel junction. Later, cleaning and shaping of the canals was done. Based on the sealer used, the samples (each group consisting of 20 samples) were divided randomly into three groups: group I—bioceramic sealer, group II—resin-based sealer, group III—MTA-based sealer. All split samples were visualized under scanning electron microscope (SEM) at apical and coronal thirds of root canal, the marginal gap at root dentin and sealer interface were assessed. Results: The highest marginal adaptation (5.60 ± 0.12) was demonstrated by EndoSequence BC sealer, followed immediately by ProRoot MTA sealer (4.48 ± 0.12) and EndoREZ sealer (2.10 ± 0.54). A statistically significant difference (p = 0.001) was seen between the EndoSequence BC and ProRoot MTA sealer for apical and coronal marginal adaptation. Also, a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) was found between EndoSequence BC sealer vs EndoREZ sealer at coronal and EndoSequence BC sealer vs EndoREZ sealer and EndoREZ sealer vs ProRoot MTA sealer at apical third. Conclusion: The present study concluded that significant and better sealing ability and marginal adaptation was demonstrated by EndoSequence BC (bioceramic sealer) when compared to ProRoot MTA sealer (MTA-based sealer) and EndoREZ sealer (resin-based sealer). Clinical significance: Numerous endodontic sealers enter the market with various factors to attain acceptable seal. According to current study bioceramic sealer, is the appropriate sealer that hermetically seals all the margins.
Pathak S. Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability of Root End Filling Materials: An In-Vitro Study. Int J Dent Med Res 2015;1(5):48–52.
Ehsani M, Dehghani A, Abesi F, et al. Evaluation of apical micro-leakage of different endodontic sealers in the presence and absence of moisture. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2014;8(3):125–129.
Kim YK, Grandini S, Ames JM, et al. Critical review on methacrylate resin–based root canal sealers. J Endod 2010;36(3):383–399. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.023.
Wu MK, De Gee AJ, Wesselink PR. Effect of tubule orientation in the cavity wall on the seal of dental filling materials: an in vitro study. Int Endod J 1998;31(5):326–332. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1998.00144.x.
Chen H, Zhao X, Qiu Y, et al. The tubular penetration depth and adaption of four sealers: a scanning electron microscopic study. Biomed Res Int 2017;2017:1–8.
Tyagi S, Mishra P, Tyagi P. Evolution of root canal sealers: an insight story. Eur J Gen Dent 2013;2(3):199–218. DOI: 10.4103/2278-9626.115976.
Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Endodontic leakage studies reconsidered. Part I. Methodology, application and relevance. Int Endod J 1993;26(1): 37–43. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1993.tb00540.x.
Ferreira R, Bombana AC, Sayeg IJ. In vitro analysis of the penetration of methylene blue dye in human radicular dentin using different methods of impregnation. Aust Endod J 2008;34(3):110–114. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2007.00107.x.
Punithia PG, Shashikala K. Evaluation of the adaptation of resin based sealers epiphany, AH plus and AH 26 to the root canal dentin by scanning electron microscope. Indian J Stomatol 2011;2(4): 207–211.
Zhou HM, Shen Y, Zheng W, et al. Physical properties of 5 root canal sealers. J Endod 2013;39(10):1281–1286. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.012.
Polineni S, Bolla N, Mandava P, et al. Marginal adaptation of newer root canal sealers to dentin: a SEM study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(4): 360–363. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.186453.
Hegde V, Arora S. Sealing ability of three hydrophilic single-cone obturation systems: An in vitro glucose leakage study. Contemp Clin Dent 2015;6(Suppl 1):S86–S89. DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.152953.
Pawar SS, Pujar MA, Makandar SD. Evaluation of the apical sealing ability  of bioceramic sealer, AH plus & epiphany: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(6):579–582. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707. 144609.
Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, et al. Evaluation of radiopacity, ph, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2012;38(6):842–845. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.02.029.
Mamootil K, Messer H. Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo. Int Endod J 2007;40(11):873–881. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01307.x.
Tay F, Loushine R, Monticelli F, et al. Effectiveness of resin-coated guttapercha cones and a dual-cured, hydrophilic methacrylate resin-based sealer in obturating root canals. J Endod 2005;31(9):659–664. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000171942.69081.53.
Muliyar S, Shameem KA, Thankachan RP, et al. Microleakage in endodontics. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(6):99–104.
Nair U, Ghattas S, Saber M, et al. A comparative evaluation of the sealing ability of 2 root-end filling materials: an in vitro leakage study using enterococcus faecalis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112(2):e74–e77. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.01.030.
Loushine BA, Bryan TE, Looney SW, et al. Setting properties and cytotoxicity evaluation of a premixed bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod 2011;37(5):673–677. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.01.003.
Hirschberg CS, Patel NS, Patel LM, et al. Comparison of sealing ability of MTA and EndoSequence bioceramic root repair material: a bacterial leakage study. Quintessence Int 2013;44(5):e157–e162.