Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Bezmialem Vakif University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Department of Anatomy, Faculty of Medicine and Surgery, University of Malta, Msida, Malta.
J Endod. 2018 Jun;44(6):1007-1017. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.11.011. Epub 2018 Feb 2.
The stability and long-term success of root canal obturation depends on the choice of sealer because the sealer bonds to the dentin and stabilizes the solid cone. Furthermore, the sealer needs to be nontoxic because sealer toxicity will certainly lead to treatment failure. The aim of this study was to assess the sealer-dentin interface of 3 hydraulic root canal sealers and to evaluate their cytocompatibility compared with AH Plus (Dentsply DeTrey GmbH, Konstanz, Germany).
Four dental root canal sealers were assessed. AH Plus, MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), BioRoot RCS (Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France), and Endoseal (Maruchi, Wonju-si, Gangwon-do, South Korea) were characterized using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive spectroscopy. The sealer-tooth interface was assessed by confocal microscopy and scanning electron microscopy, and biocompatibility was measured by assessing the cell metabolic function using direct contact assays and alkaline phosphatase activity.
The tricalcium silicate-based sealers presented a different microstructure and elemental composition despite their similar chemistry and classification. BioRoot RCS was free of aluminum, and all sealers presented different radiopacifying elements. The sealer penetration in the dentinal tubules and interfacial characteristics were different. The migration of silicon was evident from sealer to tooth for all sealers containing tricalcium silicate. MTA Fillapex and BioRoot RCS exhibited the best cytocompatibility in both the direct contact test and alkaline phosphatase activity.
The use of hydraulic calcium silicate-based sealers has introduced a different material type to endodontics. These materials are different than other sealers mostly because of their hydraulic nature and their interaction with the environment. Although the sealers tested had a similar chemistry, their cytocompatibility and bonding mechanisms were diverse.
根管充填的稳定性和长期成功取决于密封剂的选择,因为密封剂与牙本质结合并稳定固位锥体。此外,密封剂需要无毒,因为密封剂的毒性肯定会导致治疗失败。本研究旨在评估 3 种液压根管封闭剂的密封剂-牙本质界面,并评估与 AH Plus(Dentsply DeTrey GmbH,康斯坦茨,德国)相比的细胞相容性。
评估了 4 种牙根管封闭剂。AH Plus、MTA Fillapex(Angelus,Londrina,巴西)、BioRoot RCS(Septodont,Saint-Maur-des-Fossés,法国)和 Endoseal(Maruchi,Wonju-si,Gangwon-do,韩国)通过扫描电子显微镜和能谱进行了表征。通过共聚焦显微镜和扫描电子显微镜评估密封剂-牙界面,通过直接接触测定法和碱性磷酸酶活性评估细胞代谢功能来测量生物相容性。
尽管化学性质和分类相似,但基于硅酸三钙的密封剂呈现出不同的微观结构和元素组成。BioRoot RCS 不含铝,所有密封剂均含有不同的阻射元素。牙本质小管内的密封剂渗透和界面特性不同。所有含有硅酸三钙的密封剂均可见硅从密封剂向牙齿迁移。在直接接触试验和碱性磷酸酶活性中,MTA Fillapex 和 BioRoot RCS 表现出最佳的细胞相容性。
液压硅酸钙基封闭剂的使用为牙髓学引入了一种不同的材料类型。这些材料与其他密封剂不同,主要是因为它们的液压性质及其与环境的相互作用。尽管测试的密封剂具有相似的化学性质,但它们的细胞相容性和结合机制却有所不同。