Comparison of Obturation Quality between Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers and Resin-Based Sealers for Endodontic Re-treatment.

Hye-Ryeon Jin,Yemi Kim,Young-Eun Jang

doi:10.3390/ma15010072

Abstract

Background: The objective of this micro-computed tomography (micro-CT)-based study was to compare the filling quality of endodontic treatment and endodontic Re-treatment between two sealers with matched obturation techniques: calcium silicate-based sealer (Endoseal TCS) with a single-cone technique (SCT) and resin-based sealer (AH Plus) with a continuous wave technique (CWT). Methods: Forty maxillary premolars were selected and assigned into four groups, according to the obturation methods of the first endodontic treatment and Re-treatment (n = 10). The AP/AP group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT. The AP/ET group was first treated with AH Plus/CWT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The ET/AP group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with AH Plus/CWT, and the ET/ET group was first treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT, then re-treated with Endoseal TCS/SCT. The specimens were scanned using micro-CT at three time points: after the first endodontic treatment, after gutta-percha (GP) cone removal, and after Re-treatment. The void volume of root canal obturation and the volume of the remaining filling materials were calculated. Data were analyzed using Student’s t-tests and ANOVA. Results: The Endoseal TCS groups (ET/AP and ET/ET) showed a lower percentage of voids than the AH plus groups (AP/AP and AP/ET) on the whole canal and the apical third, after first obturation (p < 0.05). The AH plus group showed significantly fewer remnants than the Endoseal TCS group after GP removal (p < 0.05). Re-treated canals and initially treated canals had similar void volumes (p > 0.05). There was no significant difference in void volume after Re-treatment, regardless of whether the same or different sealers were used for the first treatment and Re-treatment (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Endoseal TCS sealer and AH Plus sealer had a similar Re-treatment efficacy, regardless of which sealer was used in the previous treatment.

Highlights

In recent years, calcium silicate-based sealers such as Endoseal mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (Maruchi, Wonju, Korea), MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), and Endosequence BC (Brassler USA, Savannah, GA, USA) have been introduced in endodontics
Endoseal TCS sealer and AH Plus sealer had a similar Re-treatment efficacy, regardless of which sealer was used in the previous treatment
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations

Summary

Introduction

Calcium silicate-based sealers such as Endoseal MTA (Maruchi, Wonju, Korea), MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), and Endosequence BC (Brassler USA, Savannah, GA, USA) have been introduced in endodontics. As these sealers are composed of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)-derived materials, they have biocompatibility [1,2,3], antibacterial effects [4,5], and a superior sealing ability [6,7,8]. Previous studies have shown that calcium silicate-based sealers have a similar obturation quality and intracanal void percentage, compared to AH. The AH plus group showed significantly fewer remnants than the Endoseal

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion