Comparative evaluation of physicochemical properties of various root canal sealers: An in vitro study.

Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics Pub Date : 2025-04-01 Epub Date: 2025-04-03 DOI:10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_866_24

Kiran Singbal, Philip Pradeep, Ashvin Kaur Mangat

{"title":"Comparative evaluation of physicochemical properties of various root canal sealers: An in vitro study.","authors":"Kiran Singbal, Philip Pradeep, Ashvin Kaur Mangat","doi":"10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_866_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: New endodontic sealers are frequently introduced; hence, understanding the properties of each sealer and choosing the most appropriate one is essential for clinical decision-making.Aim: This study aimed to assess the physicochemical properties of a new zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer (EssenSeal®) compared with three other sealers: a calcium hydroxide-based sealer (Hydrosealer), a bioceramic silicone-based sealer (Roeko GuttaFlow), and an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus).Materials and methods: The evaluation included pH, flow, radiopacity, and solubility according to the ISO 6876/2012 standard. pH levels were measured at various time intervals in deionized water (1, 3, 24, 72, 168, 336, and 504 h). Radiopacity was assessed radiographically in millimeters of aluminum, while solubility was determined after 7 days of immersion in deionized water and quantified by mass loss (%). Data analysis involved ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and pairwise comparison tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.Results: EssenSeal® exhibited the highest flow and solubility (P < 0.001), while AH Plus showed the highest radiopacity and the lowest pH and solubility (P < 0.001). Except for AH Plus, all sealers demonstrated alkalinization and radiopacity in compliance with ISO 6876 standards.Conclusion: EssenSeal® showed promising physicochemical properties, but did not fully comply with ISO 6876/2012 standards.","PeriodicalId":516842,"journal":{"name":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","volume":"28 4","pages":"325-330"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12037120/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/JCDE.JCDE_866_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/4/3 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: New endodontic sealers are frequently introduced; hence, understanding the properties of each sealer and choosing the most appropriate one is essential for clinical decision-making.

Aim: This study aimed to assess the physicochemical properties of a new zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer (EssenSeal^®) compared with three other sealers: a calcium hydroxide-based sealer (Hydrosealer), a bioceramic silicone-based sealer (Roeko GuttaFlow), and an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus).

Materials and methods: The evaluation included pH, flow, radiopacity, and solubility according to the ISO 6876/2012 standard. pH levels were measured at various time intervals in deionized water (1, 3, 24, 72, 168, 336, and 504 h). Radiopacity was assessed radiographically in millimeters of aluminum, while solubility was determined after 7 days of immersion in deionized water and quantified by mass loss (%). Data analysis involved ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, and pairwise comparison tests, with statistical significance set at P < 0.05.

Results: EssenSeal^® exhibited the highest flow and solubility (P < 0.001), while AH Plus showed the highest radiopacity and the lowest pH and solubility (P < 0.001). Except for AH Plus, all sealers demonstrated alkalinization and radiopacity in compliance with ISO 6876 standards.

Conclusion: EssenSeal^® showed promising physicochemical properties, but did not fully comply with ISO 6876/2012 standards.

查看原文本刊更多论文

不同根管封闭剂理化性质的比较研究。

背景：新的牙髓封闭剂经常被引入；因此，了解每种封口剂的特性并选择最合适的封口剂对临床决策至关重要。目的：本研究旨在评估一种新型氧化锌丁香酚基密封剂（EssenSeal®）的物理化学性能，并与其他三种密封剂进行比较：氢氧化钙基密封剂（Hydrosealer）、生物陶瓷硅基密封剂（Roeko GuttaFlow）和环氧树脂基密封剂（AH Plus）。材料和方法：根据ISO 6876/2012标准，评估包括pH值、流量、不透明度和溶解度。在去离子水中测量不同时间间隔的pH值（1,3,24,72,168,336和504 h）。以毫米铝为单位评估放射不透明度，在去离子水中浸泡7天后测定溶解度，并通过质量损失（%）进行量化。资料分析采用方差分析、Kruskal-Wallis检验和两两比较检验，P < 0.05为统计学显著性。结果：EssenSeal®具有最高的流动性和溶解度（P < 0.001），而AH Plus具有最高的放射不透明度，最低的pH和溶解度（P < 0.001）。除AH Plus外，所有封口剂均符合ISO 6876标准。结论：EssenSeal具有良好的理化性能，但不完全符合ISO 6876/2012标准。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics

自引率

0.00%

发文量