![](images/Newspaper.gif)
Intratubular Penetration and Push-out Bond Strength of AH Plus, GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal Sealers: An In-vitro Study
Correspondence Address :
Dr. Chetana Sachin Makade,
Associate Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ranjeet Deshmukh Dental College and Research Centre, Hingna Rd, Digdoh Hills, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440019, India.
E-mail: makade.chetana@gmail.com
Introduction: The root canal obturating material provides a three-dimensional fluid-impervious seal. Root canal sealers play a major role in providing a seal between the core material and the tooth for the long-term success of endodontic treatment.
Aim: To evaluate the intratubular penetration and Bond Strength (BS) and push-out BS of AH Plus, GuttaFlow 2, and GuttaFlow Bioseal sealers.
Materials and Methods: The in-vitro study was conducted in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics at Ranjeet Deshmukh Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India, from October 2019 to April 2021. A total of 75 human mandibular first premolars were decoronated at the Cemento-enamel Junction (CEJ) with a standardised length of 16 mm. The root canal was prepared using the crown-down technique with HyFlex Electrical Discharge Machining (EDM) rotary files and divided into three groups: Group-I: AH Plus, Group-II: GuttaFlow 2, and Group-III: GuttaFlow Bioseal. 0.1% Rhodamine B dye was added to the sealer and obturated using the single cone technique. These samples were transversely sectioned into beams at the middle third of the root. A confocal laser scanning microscope was used to evaluate the depth of sealer penetration in the dentinal tubule, and a Universal Testing Machine was utilised to measure the push-out BS (MPa). The recorded data were subjected to statistical analysis {one-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test, Tukey’s post-hoc test, and Pearson’s correlation coefficient}.
Results: The results obtained indicated that there was a significant difference in the depth of penetration and push-out BS of AH Plus and GuttaFlow 2 sealers (p <0.0001). However, there was no significant difference found between AH Plus and GuttaFlow Bioseal sealers (p=0.206). In addition, there was no significant difference in the correlation between intratubular penetration and push-out BS of the sealers (negative correlation).
Conclusion: Considering the results, the GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer was found to have comparable clinical performance with AH Plus sealer; hence, it can be used as an acceptable root canal sealer.
Confocal laser scanning microscopy, Fluid impervious seal, Root canal filling materials, Root canal sealers, Root canal therapy
DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2024/70494.19565
Date of Submission: Mar 06, 2024
Date of Peer Review: May 01, 2024
Date of Acceptance: May 13, 2024
Date of Publishing: Jun 01, 2024
AUTHOR DECLARATION:
• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? No
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA
PLAGIARISM CHECKING METHODS:
• Plagiarism X-checker: Mar 08, 2024
• Manual Googling: May 06, 2024
• iThenticate Software: May 11, 2024 (19%)
ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin
EMENDATIONS: 6
- Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
- Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
- Academic Search Complete Database
- Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
- Embase
- EBSCOhost
- Google Scholar
- HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
- Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
- Journal seek Database
- Popline (reproductive health literature)
- www.omnimedicalsearch.com