Remy Vimal, Krishnan Vineesh, Job Tisson V, Ravisankar Madhavankutty S, Raj C V Renjith, John Seena
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kannur Dental College, Kannur, Kerala, India, e-mail:
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sree Mookambika Institute of Dental Sciences, Kanyakumari, Tamil Nadu, India.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2017 Dec 1;18(12):1130-1134. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2188.
This study aims to compare the marginal adaptation and sealing ability [mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)-Fillapex, AH Plus, Endofill sealers] of root canal sealers.
In the present study, the inclusion criteria include 45 single-rooted extracted mandibular premolar teeth, with single canal and complete root formation. The sectioning of the samples was done at the cementoenamel junction using a low-speed diamond disc. Step-back technique was used to prepare root canals manually. The MTA-Fillapex, AH Plus, and Endofill sealers were the three experimental sealer groups to which 45 teeth were distributed. Under scanning electron microscope (SEM), marginal gap at sealer and root dentin interface were examined at coronal and apical halves of root canal.
Among the three maximum marginal adaptations were seen with AH Plus sealer (4.10 ± 0.10) which is followed by Endofill sealer (1.44 ± 0.18) and MTA-Fillapex sealer (0.80 ± 0.22). Between the coronal and apical marginal adaptation, significant statistical difference (p = 0.001) was seen in AH Plus sealer. When a Mann-Whitney U-test was done on MTA-Fillapex sealer vs AH Plus sealer and AH Plus sealer vs Endofill sealer, there was a statistically significant difference (p < 0.05) found between the above two groups at coronal and apical third.
The present study proves that AH Plus sealer has a better marginal adaptation when compared with other sealers used.
For sealing space of crown wall and main cone in root canal treatment, sealers play an important role. The other advantages of sealers are that they are used to fill voids and irregularities in root channel, secondary, lateral channels, and space between applied gutta-percha cones and also act as tripper during filling.
本研究旨在比较根管封闭剂的边缘适应性和封闭能力[三氧化矿物凝聚体（MTA）-菲拉派克、AH Plus、Endofill封闭剂]。
在本研究中，纳入标准包括45颗单根拔除的下颌前磨牙，根管单一且牙根完全形成。使用低速金刚石切割片在牙骨质釉质界处对样本进行切片。采用逐步后退技术手动预备根管。MTA-菲拉派克、AH Plus和Endofill封闭剂为三个实验组，将45颗牙齿分配至各组。在扫描电子显微镜（SEM）下，检查根管冠方和根尖方封闭剂与牙根牙本质界面处的边缘间隙。
在三种封闭剂中，AH Plus封闭剂的最大边缘适应性最佳（4.10±0.10），其次是Endofill封闭剂（1.44±0.18）和MTA-菲拉派克封闭剂（0.80±0.22）。在AH Plus封闭剂的冠方和根尖方边缘适应性之间，存在显著的统计学差异（p = 0.001）。当对MTA-菲拉派克封闭剂与AH Plus封闭剂以及AH Plus封闭剂与Endofill封闭剂进行曼-惠特尼U检验时，发现上述两组在冠方和根尖三分之一处存在统计学显著差异（p < 0.05）。
本研究证明，与其他使用的封闭剂相比，AH Plus封闭剂具有更好的边缘适应性。
在根管治疗中，封闭剂对于封闭冠壁和主牙胶尖的空间起着重要作用。封闭剂的其他优点包括用于填充根管内的空隙和不规则处、侧支根管、应用牙胶尖之间的间隙，并且在充填过程中还可作为推压器。
