Kharouf Naji, Arntz Youri, Eid Ammar, Zghal Jihed, Sauro Salvatore, Haikel Youssef, Mancino Davide
Faculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte Elisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale, Unité Mixte de Recherche 1121, 11 rue Humann, 67085 Strasbourg, France.
J Clin Med. 2020 Sep 25;9(10):3096. doi: 10.3390/jcm9103096.
The aim of this study was to compare the physicochemical properties, filling ability, and antibacterial activity of a premixed calcium silicate-based sealer to those of a powder-liquid bioceramic sealer. Ceraseal (CS) and BioRoot (BR) materials were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy at 7 and 14 d of immersion in distilled water. The filling ability of the two sealers as well as the water contact angle, solubility, flow, roughness, crystalline microstructure, pH, and compressive strength were also evaluated. The antibacterial activity was assessed through an agar diffusion as well as through direct tests. All the results were statistically analyzed using one-way or two-way analysis of variance tests. Statistically significant lower void percentages were observed for CS at 2 and 8 mm from the working length (WL) compared to those for the BR group, whilst no significant difference was observed at 5 mm from the WL. BR sealer showed higher alkaline pH, rougher surface, lower water contact angle values, lower flowability, and higher solubility compared to CS. BR showed globular and needle-like crystalline microstructure, whilst CS had globular and flower-like crystalline microstructure up to 72 h. No statistical difference was found for the compressive strength between the two sealers. BR and CS showed no antibacterial effect against after 3 h, whilst both sealers showed antibacterial capacity after 24 and 72 h. BR demonstrated higher antibacterial activity after 24 h. In conclusion, the use of bioceramic sealers may play an important role in controlling bacterial growth. Moreover, CS may have superior filling ability and lower solubility than the BioRoot sealer due to its specific chemical composition and mixing method.
本研究的目的是比较预混硅酸钙基封闭剂与粉液型生物陶瓷封闭剂的物理化学性质、充填能力和抗菌活性。在蒸馏水浸泡7天和14天时，使用扫描电子显微镜和能量色散X射线光谱仪对Ceraseal（CS）和BioRoot（BR）材料进行分析。还评估了两种封闭剂的充填能力以及水接触角、溶解度、流动性、粗糙度、晶体微观结构、pH值和抗压强度。通过琼脂扩散试验以及直接试验评估抗菌活性。所有结果均使用单向或双向方差分析进行统计分析。与BR组相比，在距工作长度（WL）2mm和8mm处观察到CS的空隙率在统计学上显著更低，而在距WL 5mm处未观察到显著差异。与CS相比，BR封闭剂显示出更高的碱性pH值、更粗糙的表面、更低的水接触角值、更低的流动性和更高的溶解度。BR呈现出球状和针状晶体微观结构，而CS在长达72小时内具有球状和花状晶体微观结构。两种封闭剂的抗压强度未发现统计学差异。BR和CS在3小时后对[具体细菌]均未显示出抗菌作用，而两种封闭剂在24小时和72小时后均显示出抗菌能力。BR在24小时后表现出更高的抗菌活性。总之，生物陶瓷封闭剂的使用可能在控制细菌生长方面发挥重要作用。此外，由于其特定的化学成分和混合方法，CS可能比BioRoot封闭剂具有更好的充填能力和更低的溶解度。
