Mittal Nabhika, Gupta Saru, Gupta Saurabh, Bansal Rajinder, Grover Vishakha, Bogra Poonam, Khullar Sanjana, Gupta Seema
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, DAV Centenary Dental College, Yamunanagar, IND.
Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Maharishi Markandeshwar College of Dental Sciences and Research, Ambala, IND.
Cureus. 2025 Mar 17;17(3):e80741. doi: 10.7759/cureus.80741. eCollection 2025 Mar.
Achieving an impervious seal in root canal treatment is crucial for preventing bacterial infiltration and ensuring long-term success. Various root canal sealers are available, each with different compositions and sealing abilities. This in vitro study aimed to compare the sealing abilities of four different root canal sealers using dye penetration and scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Sixty-two extracted single-rooted human teeth were prepared using a standardized rotary instrumentation technique. One tooth served as the positive control, and one tooth served as the negative control. The remaining 60 samples were randomly divided into four experimental groups. In Group 1 (n = 15), gutta-percha (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was used in conjunction with Tubli-Seal (SybronEndo, Orange, California). In Group 2 (n = 15), gutta-percha was used in conjunction with AH Plus (Dentsply Maillefer). In Group 3 (n = 15), gutta-percha was used in conjunction with RealSeal SE (SybronEndo). In Group 4 (n = 15), gutta-percha was used in conjunction with SmartPaste Bio (Smartseal DRFP Ltd., Stamford, UK). The samples were obturated using the cold lateral condensation method. After obturation, 10 teeth in each group were evaluated for microleakage using the dye penetration method, and five teeth from each group were examined under SEM to analyze the adaptation of the sealers to the dentinal walls. The data were statistically analyzed.
The mean dye penetration values were significantly different between groups (P < 0.05). Group 1 showed the highest mean dye infiltration (9.30 ± 1.75 mm), followed by Group 2 (6.80 ± 1.21 mm), Group 3 (4.70 ± 0.89 mm), and the least in Group 4 (2.15 ± 1.16 mm). SEM analysis further confirmed that Group 1 had the highest mean microgap (18.44 ± 4.98 µm), followed by Group 2 (12.90 ± 2.81 µm), Group 3 (9.41 ± 3.51 µm), and the least in Group 4 (2.65 ± 2.07 µm).
The findings suggest that the sealing ability of root canal sealers varies significantly, with SmartPaste Bio demonstrating the best performance in terms of microleakage and adaptation to the dentinal walls. Clinicians should consider the choice of sealer as a critical factor in achieving an optimal apical seal. Further in vivo studies are required to validate these results and determine their clinical implications.
在根管治疗中实现不透水密封对于防止细菌侵入和确保长期成功至关重要。有多种根管封闭剂可供选择，每种封闭剂的成分和密封能力各不相同。本体外研究旨在使用染料渗透法和扫描电子显微镜（SEM）比较四种不同根管封闭剂的密封能力。
使用标准化的旋转器械技术对62颗拔除的单根人牙进行预备。一颗牙作为阳性对照，一颗牙作为阴性对照。其余60个样本随机分为四个实验组。第1组（n = 15），使用牙胶尖（登士柏迈尔菲尔，瑞士巴拉伊格）与Tubli-Seal（赛柏蓝公司，美国加利福尼亚州奥兰治）联合使用。第2组（n = 15），使用牙胶尖与AH Plus（登士柏迈尔菲尔）联合使用。第3组（n = 15），使用牙胶尖与RealSeal SE（赛柏蓝公司）联合使用。第4组（n = 15），使用牙胶尖与SmartPaste Bio（英国斯坦福Smartseal DRFP有限公司）联合使用。样本采用冷侧向加压法进行充填。充填后，每组10颗牙使用染料渗透法评估微渗漏情况，每组5颗牙在SEM下观察分析封闭剂与牙本质壁的贴合情况。对数据进行统计学分析。
各组间平均染料渗透值差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。第1组平均染料渗入量最高（9.30 ± 1.75 mm），其次是第2组（6.80 ± 1.21 mm）、第3组（4.70 ± 0.89 mm），第4组最少（2.15 ± 1.16 mm）。SEM分析进一步证实，第1组平均微间隙最大（18.44 ± 4.98 µm），其次是第2组（12.90 ± 2.81 µm）、第3组（9.41 ± 3.51 µm），第4组最少（2.65 ± 2.07 µm）。
研究结果表明，根管封闭剂的密封能力差异显著，SmartPaste Bio在微渗漏和与牙本质壁的贴合方面表现最佳。临床医生应将封闭剂的选择视为实现最佳根尖密封的关键因素。需要进一步的体内研究来验证这些结果并确定其临床意义。
