Clinical Oral Investigations

, Volume 22, Issue 6, pp 2353–2361 | Cite as

Comparison of two observational methods, scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopies, in the adhesive interface analysis of endodontic sealers to root dentine

  • Maybell Tedesco
  • Marcelo Carvalho Chain
  • Eduardo Antunes Bortoluzzi
  • Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia
  • Ana Maria Hecke Alves
  • Cleonice Silveira Teixeira
Original Article



To compare the accuracy of confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) during the analysis of the adhesive interface integrity and intratubular penetration of root canal sealers to radicular dentine.

Materials and methods

Twenty roots of human maxillary incisors were prepared and distributed into two groups (n = 10), followed by filling with gutta-percha and Endofill (G1) or AH Plus (G2). After 7 days, roots were sectioned and analyzed under CLSM and SEM. Score systems were used to evaluate the adhesive interface integrity (0–4) and sealer intratubular penetration (0–3). Data were submitted to Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and Kendall correlation statistical tests (α = 5%).


In the adhesive interface analysis, CLSM was similar (P = 0.157) to SEM for Endofill; however, the results were different for AH Plus (P = 0.029). Intratubular penetration had significant difference between observational methods for both sealers (P < 0.0001). Correlation analysis between SEM and CLSM for adhesive interface was moderate for Endofill and low for AH Plus. Intratubular penetration was low for both sealers.


SEM and CLSM analysis had similar results when sealers were compared, with a more homogeneous adhesive interface, and greater intratubular penetration for AH Plus. Comparison between observational methods demonstrated low positive correlation for adhesive interface and intratubular penetration analysis.

Clinical relevance

A proper interface formed between sealer and dentine is very important for final quality of root canal filling. Observational methods which allow an accurate analysis of this interface must be selected to assess such features.


Adhesive interface CLSM Root canal sealer Intratubular penetration SEM 



The authors would like to thank the Biocel group (Federal University of Paraná), which kindly performed the CLSM analysis, and the Central Laboratory of Microscopy (LCME, Federal University of Santa Catarina) for SEM Analysis.

Funding information

This study was financially supported by the “Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Inovação do Estado de Santa Catarina - FAPESC” (grant # TO-10027/2012-7).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

The Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Santa Catarina has approved this study (Protocol No 42929015.0.0000.0121).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.


  1. 1.
    Baumgartner G, Zehnder M, Paque F (2007) Enterococcus faecalis type strain leakage through root canals filled with Gutta-Percha/AH plus or Resilon/Epiphany. J Endod 33(1):45–47. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Topçuoğlu HS, Arslan H, Akçay M, Saygili G, Çakici F, Topçuoğlu G (2014) The effect of medicaments used in endodontic regeneration technique on the dislocation resistance of mineral trioxide aggregate to root canal dentin. J Endod 40(12):2041–2044. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Camilleri J (2015) Sealers and warm gutta-percha obturation techniques. J Endod 41(1):72–78. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Moinzadeh AT, Zerbst W, Boutsioukis C, Shemesh H, Zaslansky P (2015) Porosity distribution in root canals filled with gutta percha and calcium silicate cement. Dent Mater 31(9):1100–1108. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Biggs S, Knowles K, Ibarrola J, Pashley DH (2006) An in vitro assessment of the sealing ability of resilon/epiphany using fluid filtration. J Endod 32(8):759–761. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pereira RD, Brito-Júnior M, Leoni GB, Estrela C, de Sousa-Neto MD (2017) Evaluation of bond strength in single-cone fillings of canals with different cross-sections. Int Endod J 50(2):177–183. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Teixeira CS, Silva-Sousa YC, Sousa-Neto MD (2008) Effects of light exposure time on composite resin hardness after root reinforcement using translucent fibre post. J Dent 36(7):520–528. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Generali L, Cavani F, Serena V, Pettenati C, Righi E, Bertoldi C (2017) Effect of different irrigation systems on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules. J Endod 43(4):652–666. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Toledano M, Sauro S, Cabello I, Watson T, Osorio R (2013) A Zn-doped etch-and-rinse adhesive may improve the mechanical properties and the integrity at the bonded-dentin interface. Dent Mater 29(8):142–152. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Priyadarshini BM, Selvan ST, TB L, Xie H, Neo J, Fawzy AS (2016) Chlorhexidine nanocapsule drug delivery approach to the resin-dentin interface. J Dent Res 95(9):1065–1072. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Eltair M, Pitchika V, Hickel R, Kühnisch J, Diegritz C (2017) Evaluation of the interface between gutta-percha and two types of sealers using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Clin Oral Investig.
  12. 12.
    Bitter K, Paris S, Mueller J, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM (2009) Correlation of scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopic analyses for visualization of dentin/adhesive interfaces in the root canal. J Adhes Dent 11(1):7–14. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Teixeira CS, Alfredo E, Thomé LHC, Gariba Silva R, Silva-Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD (2009) Adhesion of endodontic sealer to dentin and gutta percha: shear and push-out bond strength measurements and SEM analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 17(2):129–135.
  14. 14.
    Bitter K, Paris S, Martus P, Schartner R, Kielbassa AMA (2004) Confocal laser scanning microscope investigation of different dental adhesives bonded to root canal dentine. Int Endod J 37(12):840–848. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ordinola-Zapata R, Bramante CM, Graeff MS, del Carpio Perochena A, Vivan RR, Camargo EJ, Garcia RB, Bernardineli N, Gutmann JL, de Moraes IG (2009) Depth and percentage of penetration of endodontic sealers into dentinal tubules after root canal obturation using a lateral compactation technique: a confocal scanning microscopy study. Oral Surg Oral Med, Oral Pathol, Oral Radiol Endod 108(3):450–457. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    D’Alpino PH, Pereira JC, Svezero NR, Rueggelerg FA, Pashley DH (2006) Use of fluorescent compounds in accessing bonded resin based restauration: a literature review. J Dent 34(9):623–634. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Tedesco M, Felippe MC, Felippe WT, Alves AM, Bortoluzzi EA, Teixeira CS (2014) Adhesive interface and bond strength of endodontic sealers to root canal dentine after immersion in phosphate-buffered saline. Microsc Res Tech 77(12):1015–1022. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Santini A, Miletic V (2008) Comparison of the hybrid layer formed by Silorane adhesive, one-step self-etch, etch, and rinse systems using confocal micro-Raman spectroscopy and SEM. J Dent 36(9):683–691. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Caneppele TM, Rocha Gomes Torres C, Bresciani E (2015) Analysis of the color and fluorescence alterations of enamel and dentin treated with hydrogen peroxide. Braz Dent J 26(5):514–518. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee YK (2015) Fluorescence properties of human teeth and dental calculus for clinical applications. J Biomed Opt 20(4):040901. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yoshiyama M, Carvalho R, Sano H, Horner J, Brewer PD, Pashley DH (1995) Interfacial morphology and strength of bonds made to superficial versus deep dentin. Am J Dent 8(6):297–302PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Teixeira CS, Felippe MC, Felippe WT (2005) The effect of application time of EDTA and NaOCl on intracanal smear layer removal: an SEM analysis. Int Endod J 38(5):285–290. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Leal F, Simão RA, Fidel SR, Fidel RA, do Prado M (2015) Effect of final irrigation protocols on push-out bond strength of an epoxy resin root canal sealer to dentin. Aust Endod J 41(3):135–139. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saber SE, El-Askary FS (2009) The outcome of immediate or delayed application of a single-step self-etch adhesive to coronal dentin following the application of different endodontic irrigants. Eur J Dent 3(2):83–89PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stelzer R, Schaller HG, Gernhardt CR (2014) Push-out bond strength of RealSeal SE and AH plus after using different irrigation solutions. J Endod 40(10):1654–1657. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Collares FM, Portella FF, Rodrigues SB, Celeste RK, Leitune VC, Samuel SM (2016) The influence of methodological variables on the push-out resistance to dislodgement of root filling materials: a meta-regression analysis. Int Endod J 49(9):836–849. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Weis MV, Parashos P, Messer HH (2004) Effect of obturation technique on sealer cement thickness and dentinal tubule penetration. Int Endod J 37(10):653–663. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Montoya C, Arango-Santander S, Peláez-Vargas A, Arola D, Ossa EA (2015) Effect of aging on the microstructure, hardness and chemical composition of dentin. Arch Oral Biol 60(12):1811–1820. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    McKinlay KJ, Allison FJ, Scotchford CA, Grant DM, Oliver JM, King JR, Wood JV, Brown PD (2004) Comparison of environmental scanning electron microscopy with high vacuum scanning electron microscopy as applied to the assessment of cell morphology. J Biomed Mater Res A 1(2):359–366. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Haragushiku GA, Teixeira CS, Furuse AY, Sousa YT, De SN, Silva RG (2012) Analysis of the interface and bond strength of resin-based endodontic cements to root dentin. Microsc Res Tech 75(5):655–661. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Marín-Bauza GA, Silva-Sousa YT, da Cunha SA, Rached-Junior FJ, Bonetti-Filho I, Sousa-Neto MD, Miranda CE (2012) Physicochemical properties of endodontic sealers of different bases. J Appl Oral Sci 20(4):455–461. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Khedmat S, Momen-Heravi F, Pishvaei M (2013) A comparison of viscoelastic properties of three root canal sealers. J Dent (Tehran) 10(2):147–154Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Maybell Tedesco
    • 1
  • Marcelo Carvalho Chain
    • 1
  • Eduardo Antunes Bortoluzzi
    • 1
  • Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia
    • 1
  • Ana Maria Hecke Alves
    • 1
  • Cleonice Silveira Teixeira
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Dentistry - Endodontics Division, Health Sciences CenterFederal University of Santa CatarinaFlorianópolisBrazil

Personalised recommendations