Search

Objective: This study evaluated the influence of endodontic sealers with different chemical compositions on bond strength of resin cement/glass fiber post junction to root dentin. Materials and methods: Seventy-two maxillary canines roots were instrumented with Reciproc (#R50) and distributed in 6 groups (n = 12) according to endodontic sealers: G1—control (no sealer); G2—Endofill; G3—Sealapex; G4—AH Plus; G5—Sealer Plus; G6—EndoSequence BC. The glass fiber post was cemented with Panavia F in 10 of the specimens. Two specimens from each group did not receive post and were analyzed by SEM to verify presence of filling material. Three slices were obtained from each third. The first slice was subjected to push-out test and type of failure. The second slice was imaged using laser confocal microscopy for evaluation of dentin/resin cement adhesive interface. Bond strength (BS) data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests; for LCM data, we used Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests. Results: Endofill yielded the lowest BS values (p < 0.05). The control and AH Plus groups differed from all others (p < 0.05). In all groups, adhesive to dentin failure predominated. Most specimens of control and AH Plus groups had acceptable interfaces, while those of EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, and Sealer Plus groups ranged between acceptable and poor interfaces. Overall, few filling material remnants were observed on the dentin. Conclusion: EndoSequence BC, Sealapex, Sealer Plus, and Endofill negatively interfere with BS of glass fiber post/resin cement junction to root dentin. Clinical relevance: In cases whose restoration planning includes a post cemented with resin cement, it is recommended that endodontic sealer be based on epoxy resin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the influence of high-power lasers (Nd:YAG and diode 980 nm) associated with mineral coal as fotopotencializer on bond strength of an epoxy resin-based root canal sealer to root dentin, using the pushout test, and on the dentin/filling material interface, using confocal laser microscopy. For this purposes, 50 canines were instrumented with Mtwo rotary system up to #50.04 instrument and randomly assigned to five groups (n = 10): group I-control EDTAC; group II-EDTAC and Nd:YAG laser; group III-EDTAC and diode laser 980 nm; group IV-EDTAC, Nd:YAG laser and mineral coal 5 g/100 mL; and group V-EDTAC, diode laser 980 nm and mineral coal 5 g/100 mL. All data were analyzed by ANOVA (at 5% significance level) following the Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn and Tukey tests. The group I increased more bond strength of the sealer to root dentin that treated with only EDTAC 17% (17.21 ± 21.75 MPa), similar to the group II (12.21 ± 18.20 MPa) and group IV (14.92 ± 28.06 MPa), both treated with Nd:YAG laser, with the exception of group IV, which was added to mineral coal. The group V (8.75 ± 13.42 MPa) had similar results to the groups II and IV, but the same similarity were found when compared with group III (7.11 + 11.28 MPa), with lower results. Regarding the root thirds, the apical third (23.27 ± 29.21 MPa) presented a statistically higher value on bond strength than the cervical third (5.92 ± 5.33 MPa) and middle third (6.93 ± 7, 11 MPa) (p > 0.05). Group II (86.27 μm) showed the highest tags penetration values, with a statistically difference to the group III (51.57 μm), IV (36.77 μm) and V (32.37 μm) (p < 0.05). Group I (71.63 μm) was statistically similar to groups II and III (p > 0.05). Group IV had the lowest values and was statistically similarity to groups III and V (p > 0.05). It was concluded that the treatment with Nd:YAG laser provides better results than the diode 980 nm laser, except when was added mineral coal. The control and diode 980 nm laser groups presented less adhesive failures and more mists failures than the other groups. Both lasers did not interfere negatively compared to the control group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]