An in Vitro Assessment of Various Success Parameters of Two Different Commercially Available Endodontic Sealers: A Scanning Electron Microscopy based Original Research Study

Abstract

Aim: This study aims to assess the various success parameters of two different commercially available endodontic sealers by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) method.

Materials and Methods: The study assessed 60 extracted human single-rooted mandibular first premolars, free from caries and damage, and stored in saline. After cleaning, teeth with multiple foramina or prior treatments were excluded. Each root was encased in acrylic resin, and access cavities were created. The working length was set using a No. 15 K-file, and canals were prepared with ProTaper rotary files, rinsed with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). The smear layer was removed using 17% EDTA, followed by rinses with 5.25% NaOCl and distilled water. Canals were dried with paper points. Obturations used either AH Plus Jet Root Canal Sealer or ZenSeal with gutta-percha. Teeth were stored in 100% humidity at 37°C for 7 days for sealer setting. Roots were sectioned for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis, comparing sealants based on interfacial adaptation, dentinal tubule penetration, and microleakage prevention.

Statistical Analysis and Results: This study analysed 60 extracted human single-rooted mandibular first premolars to evaluate the success parameters of two endodontic sealants during obturation. The samples were divided into two groups: Group 1 included 30 teeth treated with gutta-percha and AH Plus Jet Root Canal Sealer, while Group 2 comprised 30 teeth treated with gutta-percha and ZenSeal from KERR CORPORATION™. The quality of the seal was assessed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) to examine the interactions between the sealant and dental structures. Statistical significance for hydrophilic properties and material shrinkage was analysed using the Pearson Chi-Square test. A one-way ANOVA compared the performance of both sealants, revealing significant differences in their effectiveness. Detailed methodologies and statistical findings are provided in the tables.

Conclusion: The study found that ZenSeal outperformed AH Plus with better surface adaptation, enhanced dentin bonding, and deeper infiltration into dentinal tubules, thanks to its bio-ceramic composition. While AH Plus had good hydrophilic properties and lower shrinkage, it was less effective in penetration and adherence. Choosing the appropriate endodontic sealer is crucial for optimal clinical outcomes.