Root Fracture Resistance of Maxillary Premolars Obturated with Three Root Canal Sealers after Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation: An in Vitro study
Iranian Endodontic Journal,
Vol. 15 No. 3 (2020),
1 July 2020
Introduction: Maxillary premolars, may be more susceptible to fracture due to their anatomy; especially when there is loss of tooth structure. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate materials and techniques that may increase fracture resistance during and post root canal treatment. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate root fracture resistance of maxillary premolars when filled with three root canal sealers as well as whether this resistance would be increased by passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). Methods and Materials: Sixty-four maxillary premolars with two roots were randomly divided into one negative control group (intact canals; n=8), one positive control group (instrumented, unsealed canals; n=8), and six experimental groups (n=8), which were instrumented with ProTaper Next rotary system up to X2 file and subdivided according to final irrigation (with or without PUI) and type of sealer used (AH-Plus [AH], MTA Fillapex [MTA], or EndoSequence BC Sealer [ES]). The specimens were subjected to fracture strength test in a universal testing machine at a speed of 1 mm/min until fracture. The maximum force required to induce fracture was recorded (N). Results: The lowest force required to cause root fracture was observed in the positive control group (310.48±54.08 N); this was significantly different from the other groups (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between experimental groups obturated with the same sealer, whether with or without PUI (AH with PUI: 558.80±87.12 N; AH without PUI: 508.75±97.55 N; MTA with PUI: 507.27±174.55 N; MTA without PUI: 516.69±96.56 N; ES with PUI: 526.76±143.97 N; ES without PUI: 628.40 ± 94.74 N) (P>0.05). There was also no significant difference between the experimental groups and the negative control group (P>0.05). Conclusions: In this in vitro study PUI did not increase the fracture resistance of maxillary premolars, while AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, EndoSequence sealers increased fracture resistance of instrumented root canals.
- Endodontically Treated Teeth; Fracture Strength; Root Canal Obturation; Root Canal Preparation; Smear Layer
How to Cite
Jafari Navimipour E, Ebrahimi Chaharom ME, Alizadeh Oskoee P, Mohammadi N, Bahari M, Firouzmandi M. Fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars restored with composite resin along with glass fiber insertion in different positions. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2012;6(4):125-30.
Mohammadi N, Kahnamoii MA, Yeganeh PK, Navimipour EJ. Effect of fiber post and cusp coverage on fracture resistance of endodontically treated maxillary premolars directly restored with composite resin. J Endod. 2009;35(10):1428-32.
Cohen S, Berman LH, Blanco L, Bakland L, Kim JS. A demographic analysis of vertical root fractures. J Endod. 2006;32(12):1160-3.
Topcuoglu HS, Tuncay O, Karatas E, Arslan H, Yeter K. In vitro fracture resistance of roots obturated with epoxy resin-based, mineral trioxide aggregate-based, and bioceramic root canal sealers. J Endod. 2013;39(12):1630-3.
Sagsen B, Ustun Y, Pala K, Demirbuga S. Resistance to fracture of roots filled with different sealers. Dent Mater J. 2012;31(4):528-32.
Celikten B, Uzuntas CF, Gulsahi K. Resistance to fracture of dental roots obturated with different materials. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:591031.
Akcay M, Arslan H, Durmus N, Mese M, Capar ID. Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA fillapex, and guttaflow bioseal root canal sealers after different final irrigation procedures: A confocal microscopic study. Lasers Surg Med. 2016;48(1):70-6.
Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, Ribeiro-Siqueira DC, Gavini G. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. J Endod. 2012;38(6):842-5.
Saber Sel D, Hashem AA. Efficacy of different final irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal. J Endod. 2011;37(9):1272-5.
Martins Justo A, Abreu da Rosa R, Santini MF, Cardoso Ferreira MB, Pereira JR, Hungaro Duarte MA, et al. Effectiveness of final irrigant protocols for debris removal from simulated canal irregularities. J Endod. 2014;40(12):2009-14.
Zamin C, Silva-Sousa YT, Souza-Gabriel AE, Messias DF, Sousa-Neto MD. Fracture susceptibility of endodontically treated teeth. Dent Traumatol. 2012;28(4):282-6.
Patil P, Banga KS, Pawar AM, Pimple S, Ganeshan R. Influence of root canal obturation using gutta-percha with three different sealers on root reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth. An in vitro comparative study of mandibular incisors. J Conserv Dent. 2017;20(4):241-4.
Haralur SB, Al-Qahtani AS, Al-Qarni MM, Al-Homrany RM, Aboalkhair AE. Influence of remaining dentin wall thickness on the fracture strength of endodontically treated tooth. J Conserv Dent. 2016;19(1):63-7.
Moore B, Verdelis K, Kishen A, Dao T, Friedman S. Impacts of contracted endodontic cavities on instrumentation efficacy and biomechanical responses in maxillary molars. J Endod. 2016;42(12):1779-83.
Ibrahim AM, Richards LC, Berekally TL. Effect of remaining tooth structure on the fracture resistance of endodontically-treated maxillary premolars: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent. 2016;115(3):290-5.
Schmidt TF, Teixeira CS, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Pashley DH, Bortoluzzi EA. Effect of ultrasonic activation of irrigants on smear layer removal. J Endod. 2015;41(8):1359-63.
Al-Jadaa A, Paque F, Attin T, Zehnder M. Acoustic hypochlorite activation in simulated curved canals. J Endod. 2009;35(10):1408-11.
Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013;39(11):1456-60.
Jiang LM, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Langedijk J, Wesselink P, van der Sluis LW. The influence of the ultrasonic intensity on the cleaning efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation. J Endod. 2011;37(5):688-92.
Kato AS, Cunha RS, da Silveira Bueno CE, Pelegrine RA, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Investigation of the efficacy of passive ultrasonic irrigation versus irrigation with reciprocating activation: an environmental scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2016;42(4):659-63.
Kocak S, Bagci N, Cicek E, Turker SA, Can Saglam B, Kocak MM. Influence of passive ultrasonic irrigation on the efficiency of various irrigation solutions in removing smear layer: a scanning electron microscope study. Microsc Res Tech. 2017;80(5):537-42.
Urban K, Donnermeyer D, Schafer E, Burklein S. Canal cleanliness using different irrigation activation systems: a SEM evaluation. Clin Oral Investig. 2017;21(9):2681-7.
Karade P, Chopade R, Patil S, Hoshing U, Rao M, Rane N, et al. Efficiency of different endodontic irrigation and activation systems in removal of the smear layer: a scanning electron microscopy study. Iran Endod J. 2017;12(4):414-8.
van der Sluis LW, Versluis M, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Passive ultrasonic irrigation of the root canal: a review of the literature. Int Endod J. 2007;40(6):415-26.
Duque JA, Duarte MA, Canali LC, Zancan RF, Vivan RR, Bernardes RA, et al. Comparative effectiveness of new mechanical irrigant agitating devices for debris removal from the canal and isthmus of mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2017;43(2):326-31.
Leoni GB, Versiani MA, Silva-Sousa YT, Bruniera JF, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Ex vivo evaluation of four final irrigation protocols on the removal of hard-tissue debris from the mesial root canal system of mandibular first molars. Int Endod J. 2017;50(4):398-406.
Blank-Goncalves LM, Nabeshima CK, Martins GH, Machado ME. Qualitative analysis of the removal of the smear layer in the apical third of curved roots: conventional irrigation versus activation systems. J Endod. 2011;37(9):1268-71.
Kamalak A, Uzun I, Arslan H, Keles A, Doganay E, Keskin C, et al. Fracture resistance of endodontically retreated roots after retreatment using self-adjusting file, passive ultrasonic irrigation, photon-induced photoacoustic streaming, or laser. Photomed Laser Surg. 2016;34(10):467-72.
Shokouhinejad N, Sabeti M, Gorjestani H, Saghiri MA, Lotfi M, Hoseini A. Penetration of Epiphany, Epiphany self-etch, and AH Plus into dentinal tubules: a scanning electron microscopy study. J Endod. 2011;37(9):1316-9.
Aktemur Turker S, Uzunoglu E, Deniz Sungur D, Tek V. Fracture resistance of teeth with simulated perforating internal resorption cavities repaired with different calcium silicate-based cements and backfilling materials. J Endod. 2018;44(5):860-3.
Lertchirakarn V, Timyam A, Messer HH. Effects of root canal sealers on vertical root fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth. J Endod. 2002;28(3):217-9.
AM EL-Ma, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. Resistance to vertical fracture of MTA-filled roots. Dent Traumatol. 2014;30(1):36-42.
Karapinar Kazandag M, Sunay H, Tanalp J, Bayirli G. Fracture resistance of roots using different canal filling systems. Int Endod J. 2009;42(8):705-10.
Chandra SS, Shankar P, Indira R. Depth of penetration of four resin sealers into radicular dentinal tubules: a confocal microscopic study. J Endod. 2012;38(10):1412-6.
Phukan AH, Mathur S, Sandhu M, Sachdev V. The effect of different root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth-in vitro study. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2017;14(6):382-8.
- Abstract Viewed: 80 times
- PDF Downloaded: 75 times