Affiliations 

  • 1 Conservative Dentistry Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health campusKubang Kerian, 16150, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia
  • 2 Conservative Dentistry Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health campusKubang Kerian, 16150, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia. rozainah@usm.my
  • 3 Prosthodontics Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health campusKubang Kerian, 16150, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia
  • 4 Paediatric Dentistry Unit, School of Dental Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Health campusKubang Kerian, 16150, Kota Bharu, Kelantan, Malaysia
Odontology, 2021 Jan;109(1):149-156.
PMID: 32623538 DOI: 10.1007/s10266-020-00535-7

Abstract

To compare the dislodgement resistance and the adhesive pattern of four different endodontic sealers to root dentine walls. Ninety lower premolars were assigned to five groups (n = 18), Group 1: no sealer (control); Group 2: EndoRez (ERZ); Group 3: Sealapex (SPX); Group 4: EndoSeal MTA (ESA) and Group 5: BioRoot RCS (BRS). They were instrumented up to size 30 taper 0.06 and obturated using single cone technique with matched-taper gutta-percha cones and one of the mentioned sealers. Six teeth from each group were then randomly subjected to 100, 1000 and 10,000 thermocycles, respectively. 1 mm slice of mid root region, measuring 6 mm from the apical foramen was prepared and subjected to push-out test under a Universal Testing Machine. Adhesive patterns of sealers were assessed using a stereomicroscope at 20 × magnification and classified using a new system. Statistical analyses were performed using two-way ANOVA, complemented by Tukey HSD and Chi-square tests. ESA and BRS showed significantly higher (p  0.05) at 100, 1000 and 10,000 thermocycles, respectively. Both ESA and BRS exhibited a significant higher rate (p 

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.