Comparison of two observational methods, scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopies, in the adhesive interface analysis of endodontic sealers to root dentine
- 208 Downloads
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.
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.
KeywordsAdhesive 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.
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
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.
For this type of study, formal consent is not required.
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.08.018 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-017-2216-x
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572009000200011
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.04.024 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jemt.22430 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12539 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1002/jbm.a.30011 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 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. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572012000400011 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 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