The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 4 ( April, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Microleakage of Nanoparticle-incorporated Cyanoacrylate Root Canal Sealer Using the Radioisotopic Method: An In Vitro Study

Chitharanjan Shetty, Shazeena Qaiser, Aditya Shetty, Rashi Shroff

Keywords : Bonding, Dentin, Microleakage, Root canal sealers

Citation Information : Shetty C, Qaiser S, Shetty A, Shroff R. Evaluation of Microleakage of Nanoparticle-incorporated Cyanoacrylate Root Canal Sealer Using the Radioisotopic Method: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (4):335-341.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3683

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 14-06-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim of the study: The study aimed to assess the microleakage of nanoparticle-based (NPB) cyanoacrylate sealer and epoxy resin-based (ERB) sealer using radioisotope method and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM). Materials and methods: A total of 100 single-rooted teeth were collected; specimens were accessed, instrumented, and irrigated, and randomly distributed into 4 groups of 25 samples each: Group I: Positive control, group II: Negative control, group III: Obturated with NPB sealer, and group IV: Obturated with ERB sealer. All samples were immersed in 99mTc pertechnetate solution, for 3 hours after which radioactivity was estimated under a Gamma camera. The radioactivity released by specimens before and after nail varnish removal was statistically analyzed. After 2 weeks, the same samples were used for CLSM analysis. The sealer tubular penetration depth was measured at the deepest level for each group using ZEN lite 2012. Data collected was statistically evaluated. Results: The amount of radioactivity observed at first in group III and group IV was 194.76 and 599.12 units, respectively, with p-value < 0.001, indicating significant interaction, and after nail varnish removal, it was 89.68 and 468.44 units, respectively, with a p-value < 0.001; again, indicating statistical significance. Hence, the radioactivity of NPB sealer was found to be lower than ERB sealer in both cases, indicating better sealing of the former. The photomicrographs show that mean value of dye penetration in NPB sealer in first, second, and third segment from apex was 85.06, 75.73, and 66.09, respectively; while in the case of ERB sealer, those were 597.28, 461.17, and 195.68, respectively; with p-value < 0.001; signifying that NPB sealer exhibited higher resistance to microleakage than ERB sealer. Conclusion: The NPB sealer can become a potential root canal sealer in future endodontics due to superior physiochemical properties attributed to the cyanoacrylate and incorporated nanoparticles. Clinical significance: The study clinically signifies that we can equally use the radioisotopic method along with confocal method while conducting the microleakage studies. In addition, NPB sealer can be an emerging replacement with better properties than gold standard root canal sealers for clinical use.


PDF Share
  1. Torabinejad M, Fouad AF, Shabahang S. Endodontics: Principles and practice. London: Elsevier. 2021. p. 68.
  2. Kaur A, Shah N, Logani A, et al. Biotoxicity of commonly used root canal sealer: A meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(2):83–88. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.153054.
  3. Grossman L. Physical properties of root canal cement. J Endod 1976;2(6):166–175. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(76)80059-3.
  4. 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.
  5. Drukteinis S, Peciuliene V, Maneliene R, et al. In vitro study of microbial leakage in roots filled with EndoREZ sealer/EndoREZ Points and AH Plus sealer/conventional gutta-percha points. Stomatologija 2009;11(1):21–25. PMID: 19423967.
  6. Liviu S. Comparison of the interface dentin-endodontic sealer using two SEM magnifications. Rev OdontoCiênc 2010;25(3):296–299. DOI: 10.1590/S1980-65232010000300015.
  7. De Almeida WA, Leonardo MR, Tanomaru M, et al. Evaluation of apical sealing of three endodontic sealers. Int Endod J 2000;33(1):25–27. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00247.x.
  8. Best Practices for Handling Extracted Teeth. Dental Infection Prevention and Control. Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/oralhealth/infectioncontrol/faqs/extracted-teeth.html.
  9. Shetty C, Shetty A, Hegde MN. Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy characterization and evaluation of setting time and flow of nanoparticle incorporated cyanoacrylate cement – An in vitro study. Endodontology 2021;33(4):216–220. DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_152_21.
  10. Dash AK, Farista S, Dash A, et al. Comparison of three different sealer placement techniques: An in vitro confocal laser microscopic study. Contemp Clin Dent 2017;8(2):310–314. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_1109_16.
  11. Buldur B, Hascizmeci C, Aksoy S, et al. Apical extrusion of debris in primary molar root canals using mechanical and manual systems. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2018;19(1):16–20. DOI: 10.23804/ejpd.2018.19.01.03.
  12. Selivanova SV, Lavallée É, Senta H, et al. Clinical trial with sodium 99mTc-pertechnetate produced by a medium-energy cyclotron: Biodistribution and safety assessment in patients with abnormal thyroid function. J Nucl Med 2017;58(5):791–798. DOI: 10.2967/jnumed.116.178509.
  13. Jarzebski M, Zhang Y, Sliwa T, et al. Core–shell fluorinated methacrylate nanoparticles with Rhodamine-B for confocal microscopy and fluorescence correlation spectroscopy applications. J Fluor Chem 2016;183:1–112. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfluchem.2016.01.014.
  14. Mokashi P, Shah J, Chandrasekhar P, et al. Comparison of the penetration depth of five root canal sealers: A confocal laser scanning microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(2):199–203. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_364_19.
  15. Eliasson ST, Dahl JE. Effect of thermal cycling on temperature changes and bond strength in different test specimens. Biomaterial Investig Dent 2020;7(1):16–24. DOI: 10.1080/26415275.2019.1709470.
  16. St Croix CM, Shand SH, Watkins SC. Confocal microscopy: Comparisons, applications, and problems. Biotechniques 2005;39(6 Suppl):S2–S5. DOI: 10.2144/000112089.
  17. Moradi S, Lomee M, Gharechahi M. Comparison of fluid filtration and bacterial leakage techniques for evaluation of microleakage in endodontics. Dental Res J 2015;12(2):109–114. PMID: 25878674.
  18. Oh H, Kubota N, Masuno K, et al. Treatments of dental crown caries, root surface caries, and dentin hypersensitivity using the instant adhesive cyanoacrylate. Clin Case Rep 2020;8(7):1180–1184. DOI: 10.1002/ccr3.2864.
  19. Sánchez-Machado DI, López-Cervantes J, Correa-Murrieta MA, et al. Chitosan. Nonvitamin and Nonmineral Nutritional Supplements, 2019; pp. 485–493. DOI: 10.1016/b978-0-12-812491-8.00064-3.
  20. Enggardipta RA, Untara RTE, Santosa P, et al. Apical sealing ability of chitosan nanoparticles in the epoxy-resin-based endodontic sealer. Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia 2020;5(2):69. DOI: 10.22146/majkedgiind.40995.
  21. DaSilva L, Finer Y, Friedman S, et al. Biofilm formation within the interface of bovine root dentin treated with conjugated chitosan and sealer containing chitosan nanoparticles. J Endod 2013;39(2):249–253. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.008.
  22. Darrag AM. Effectiveness of different final irrigation solutions on smear layer removal in intraradicular dentin. Tanta Dent J 2014;11(2):93–99. DOI: 10.1016/j.tdj.2014.06.002.
  23. Versiani MA, Abi Rached-Junior FJ, Kishen A, et al. Zinc oxide nanoparticles enhance physicochemical characteristics of Grossman sealer. J Endod 2016;42(12):1804–1810. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.08.023.
  24. Bernardes RA, de Amorim Campelo A, Junior DSS, et al. Evaluation of the flow rate of 3 endodontic sealers: Sealer 26, AH Plus, and MTA Obtura. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109(1):e47–e49. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.08.038.
  25. Ramar K, Vivek N. Biocompatibility of chitosan nanoparticle in root canal sealant with vero cell line. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2022;15(Suppl 1):S57. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2133.
  26. Remy V, Krishnan V, Job TV, et al. Assessment of marginal adaptation and sealing ability of root canal sealers: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(12):1130–1134. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2188.
  27. Teixeira CS, Alfredo E, Thomé LH, et al. Adhesion of an endodontic sealer to dentin and gutta-percha: Shear and push-out bond strength measurements and SEM analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2009;17(2):129–135. DOI: 10.1590/s1678-77572009000200011.
  28. Jacobsen EL, Shugars KA. The sealing efficacy of a zinc oxide-eugenol cement, a cyanoacrylate, and a cavity varnish used as root canal cements. J Endod 1990;16(11):516–519. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(07)80212-3.
  29. Sousa-Neto MD, Coelho FIS, Marchesan MA, et al. Ex vivo study of the adhesion of an epoxy-based sealer to human dentine submitted to irradiation with Er: YAG and Nd: YAG lasers. Int Endod J 2005;38(12):866–870. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01027.x.
  30. Carrilho E, Abrantes M, Casalta-Lopes J, et al. 99mTc in the evaluation of microleakage of composite resin restorations with SonicFillTM. An in vitro experimental model. OJST 2012;2(4):340–347. DOI: 10.4236/ojst.2012.24058.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.