Evaluation of the amount of remained sealer in the dentinal tubules following re-treatment with and without solvent

Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers

Objective

To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision.

Material and methods

Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.

Results

While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue.

Conclusions

Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely.

An Updated Review on Properties and Indications of Calcium Silicate-Based Cements in Endodontic Therapy

Regarding the common use of calcium silicate cements (CSCs) in root canal therapy, their position in the context of past and present dentistry agents can provide a better understanding of these materials for their further improvement. In this context, the present review article addresses a wide range of recent investigations in the field of CSC-based products and describes details of their composition, properties, and clinical applications. The need for maintaining or reconstructing tooth structure has increased in contemporary endodontic treatment approaches. This research thus discusses the attempts to create comprehensive data collection regarding calcium ion release, bond strength, alkalinizing activity and bioactivity, and the ability to stimulate the formation of hydroxyapatite as a bioactive feature of CSCs. Sealing ability is also highlighted as a predictor for apical and coronal microleakage which is crucial for the long-term prognosis of root canal treatment integrity. Other claimed properties such as radiopacity, porosity, and solubility are also investigated. Extended setting time is also mentioned as a well-known drawback of CSCs. Then, clinical applications of CSCs in vital pulp therapies such as pulpotomy, apexification, and direct pulp capping are reviewed. CSCs have shown their benefits in root perforation treatments and also as root canal sealers and end-filling materials. Nowadays, conventional endodontic treatments are replaced by regenerative therapies to save more dynamic and reliable hard and soft tissues. CSCs play a crucial role in this modern approach. This review article is an attempt to summarize the latest studies on the clinical properties of CSCs to shed light on the future generation of treatments.