The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Assessment of the Ability of Different Cleaning Protocols to Remove Eugenol-based Endodontic Sealer from the Root Dentin

Ana P Farina, Emanuele de Oliveira, Alana Disarz, Ana LC de Moura, Migueli Durigon, Matheus A Souza, Doglas Cecchin

Keywords : 95% alcohol, Adhesion, Amyl acetate, Fiberglass posts, Largo bur, Zinc oxide–eugenol sealer

Citation Information : Farina AP, Oliveira ED, Disarz A, de Moura AL, Durigon M, Souza MA, Cecchin D. Assessment of the Ability of Different Cleaning Protocols to Remove Eugenol-based Endodontic Sealer from the Root Dentin. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (6):657-663.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2575

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: The aim of this study is to assess three protocols for removing a eugenol-based filling endodontic sealer from root dentin and the bond strength of fiberglass posts luted with resin cement. Materials and methods: Sixty single-rooted bovine teeth were prepared and filled with the Endofill endodontic sealer and gutta-percha cones. After 7 days, 9 mm of the filling was removed and divided into five groups (n = 12) according to the cleaning protocol: G1 (negative control), unfilled; G2 (positive control), saline solution; G3, 95% alcohol; G4, amyl acetate; and G5, Largo bur. The canals were hybridized and fiberglass posts were luted with resin cement. They were cross-sectioned in slices of 1 mm and subjected to the push-out test. The other samples were sectioned longitudinally and visualized in a scanning electron microscope (SEM), and the existing chemical elements were quantified by energy dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). The statistical analysis used variance analysis (ANOVA)-one way and Fisher\'s test, at a 5% significance level. Results: The 95% alcohol was more effective for cleaning the canal, resulting in a clean dentinal surface and bond strength statistically similar to the negative control. The Largo bur was also statistically similar to the negative control, with only a few debris impregnated on the wall. Amyl acetate showed more sealer residues on the canal walls, with a consequent lower bond strength value than the other groups, only higher than the positive control. Conclusion: The 95% alcohol and Largo burs may be used after removing the canal filling, so that the bond strength is improved when using the eugenol-based sealer.

PDF Share
  1. Toman M, Toksavul S, et al. The evaluation of displacement resistance of glass FRC posts to root dentine using a thin slice push-out test. Int Endod J 2009;42(9):802–810. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2591.2009.01586.x.
  2. Choi Y, Pae A, et al. The effect of surface treatment of fiber-reinforced posts on adhesion of a resin-based luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2010;103(6):362–368. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-3913(10)60078-9.
  3. Lassila LVJ, Tanner J, et al. Flexural properties of fiber reinforced root canal posts. Dent Mater 2004;20(1):29–36.
  4. Barcellos RR, Correia DPD, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth restored with intra-radicular post: the effects of post system and dentine thickness. J Biomech 2013;46(15):2572–2577. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2013.08.016.
  5. Schwartz RS, Robbins JW. Post placement and restoration of endodontically treated teeth: a literature review. J Endod 2004;30(5):289–301. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200405000-00001.
  6. Asmussen E, Peutzfeldt A, et al. Finite element analysis of stresses in endodontically treated, dowel-restored teeth. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94(4):321–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2005.07.003.
  7. Cecchin D, Farina AP, et al. Effect of root canal sealers on bond strength of fiberglass posts cemented with self-adhesive resin cements. Int Endod J 2011;44(4):314–320. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01831.x.
  8. Cecchin D, Farina AP, et al. Effect of root-canal sealer on the bond strength of fiberglass post to root dentin. Acta Odontol Scand 2011;69(1):95–100. DOI: 10.3109/00016357.2010.536908.
  9. Teixeira CS, Pasternak-Junior B, et al. Influence of endodontic sealers on the bond strength of carbon fiber posts. J Biomed Mater Res 2008;84(2):430–435. DOI: 10.1002/jbm.b.30888.
  10. Aleisa K, Alghabban R, et al. Effect of three endodontic sealers on the bond strength of prefabricated fiber posts luted with three resin cements. J Prosthet Dent 2012;107(5):322–326. DOI: 10.1016/S0022- 3913(12)60084-5.
  11. Mosharraf R, Zare S. Effect of the type of endodontic sealer on the bond strength between fiber post and root wall dentin. J Dent 2014;11(4):455–463.
  12. Ruiz L, Gomes GM, et al. Effect of root canal sealers on bond strength of fiber posts to root dentin cemented after one week or six months. Iran Endod J 2018;13(1):54–60. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v13i1.17998.
  13. Iglesia-Puig MA, Arellano-Cabornero A. Fiber-reinforced post and core adapted to a previous metal ceramic crown. J Prosthet Dent 2004;91(2):191–194. DOI: 10.1016/S0022391303007777.
  14. Capar ID, Aydinbelge HA. Surface change of root canal dentin after the use of irrigation activation protocols: electron microscopy and an energy-dispersive X-ray microanalysis. Microsc Res Tech 2013;76(9):893–896. DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22244.
  15. Aleisa K, Al-Dwairi ZN, et al. In vitro evaluation of the effect of different endodontic sealers on retentive strength of fiber posts. Oper Dent 2013;38(5):539–544. DOI: 10.2341/12-414-L.
  16. Goracci C, Ferrai M. Current perspectives on post systems: a literature review. Aust Dent J 2011;56(1):77–83. DOI: 10.1111/j.1834- 7819.2010.01298.x.
  17. Zhou L, Wang Q. Comparison of fracture resistance between cast posts and fiber posts: a meta-analysis of literature. J Endod 2013;39(1): 11–15. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.09.026.
  18. Cohen BI, Volovich Y, et al. The effects of eugenol and epoxy-resin on the strength of a hybrid composite resin. J Endod 2002;28(2):79–82. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200202000-00007.
  19. Lima AC, Rached-Junior FJ, et al. Influence of sealer and lightcuring units on push-out bond strength of composite resin to weakened roots. Braz Dent J 2016;27(4):430–435. DOI: 10.1590/0103- 6440201601010.
  20. Kasam S, Mariswamy AB. Efficacy of different methods for removing root canal filling material in retreatment – an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(6):6–10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/17395.7904.
  21. Horvath SD, Altenburger MJ, et al. Cleanliness of dentinal tubules following gutta-percha removal with and without solvents: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2009;42(11):1032–
  22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01616.x.
  23. Altmann ASP, Leitune VCB, et al. Influence of eugenol-based sealers on push-out bond strength of fiber post luted with resin cement: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2015;41(9):1418–1423. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.05.014.
  24. Bronzato JD, Cecchin D, et al. Effect of cleaning methods on bond strength of self-etching adhesive to dentin. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(1): 26–30. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.173189.
  25. Bramante CM, Fidelis NS, et al. Heat release, time required, and cleaning ability of two R and protaper universal retreatment systems in the removal of filling material. J Endod 2010;36(11):1870–1873. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.08.013.
  26. Kuga MC, Faria G, et al. Persistence of epoxy-based sealer residues in dentin treated with different chemical removal protocols. Scanning 2012;35(1):17–21. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21030.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.