Influence of 2% chlorhexidine on the dislodgement resistance of AH plus, bioroot RCS, and GuttaFlow 2 sealer to dentin and sealer‑dentin interface.

Aim: To find out the effects of 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel intracanal medicament on the dislodgement resistance of AH Plus, BioRoot RCS, and GuttaFlow 2 Sealer to dentin and on sealer‑dentin interface. Materials and Methods: Sixty single‑rooted maxillary canine were taken and divided into two groups based on the treatment: Group 1 – control group (no medicament) (n = 30) and Group 2 – (GLUCO‑CHeX 2% Gel) (n = 30). Further, the groups were divided according to the sealer used, namely (A) AH Plus sealer, (B) BioRoot RCS Sealer, and (c) Gutta Flow 2 sealer. Teeth were prepared using rotary instrumentation of file size 35 with a taper of 0.06 and obturation was done. 1 mm thick sections were obtained from the roots. All the sections were checked for push out bond strength using Universal testing machine and mode of failure using stereomicroscope. Some samples were evaluated for sealer‑dentin interface using field emission scanning electron microscope. Results: AH Plus showed higher bond strength compared to BioRoot RCS and GuttaFlow 2. There was no significant difference in the push out bond strength with or without the prior use of 2% CHX medicament (P > 0.05) and also CHX did not affect the mode of failure. However, sealer‑dentin interface gap was increased with application of medicament. Conclusion: Dislodgement resistance of AH Plus sealer is significantly higher than BioRoot RCS and GuttaFlow 2 sealer. The application of 2% CHX intracanal medicament before root canal obturation did not significantly affect the dislodgement resistance of the three tested sealers. 2% CHX medicament did not affect the failure mode of the sealers. Sealer‑dentin interface is affected by the use of 2% CHX gel medicament. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]