Our research aimed to evaluate the difference in water sorption, water solubility and push out bond strength between three bioceramic sealers (CeraSeal, NeoSEALER Flo, Well Root ST) with (AH plus).

Materials and methods

For water sorption and solubility, we prepared thirty-two discs and incubated until complete setting. According to the type of sealer, they were divided into four groups (n=8). The percentage of water sorption was calculated utilizing this formula: percentage of water sorption= (weight gained-initial weight /initial weight) x100. Percentage of water solubility = (water solubility / Dry weight) x100. For push out bond strength, instrumentation and irrigation were performed for forty single rooted teeth. Four groups were created according to sealer used. Cross-sectional cuts were made perpendicular to the root’s long axis for each specimen. The peak load observed was divided by the surface area to get the bond strength using the formula (A=(3.14 h (r1+r2)).

Results

For solubility, Ah plus showed lower solubility after 1 and 3 days but Ceraseal showed lowest solubility after 7 days. For water sorption, Neosealer Flo showed lowest water sorption after 1 day but AH plus showed lowest water sorption after 3 and 7 days. For push out bond strength, for coronal section, Ah Plus and Well-Root ST showed a significant highest push out bond strength in comparison with Ceraseal and Neosealer Flo.

Conclusion

The bioceramic sealers had high water solubility and water sorption which allowed the release of biologically relevant ions. All the sealers bond strength meets the required standards.

The aim of this study was to assess and draw comparisons between the antibacterial properties of various bioceramic sealers.

Materials and methods

The samples were categorized according to the sealer type that was utilized. Group 1: Well Root ST, group 2: Ceraseal, group 3: Neosealer Flo, group 4: AH plus. Manufacturer's instructions were followed when preparing the sealers and placed in sterile plastic cylinders with a diameter and depth of 5 mm. Following that, specimens were incubated at 37°C and 100% humidity for 7 days. The bacterial suspension was made with a standardized density of 0.5 on the MacFarland (1.5x108/ml). The suspensions were diluted 10,000 times after mixing for six, fifteen, and sixty minutes, and then a triplicate amount of 0.01 from each diluted suspension was placed onto the pre-prepared BHI agar plates. (Difco Lab., Detroit, MI, USA). The number of colonies forming unit for each sealer was calculated in different time throughout the experiment.

Results

For the effect on Enterococcus faecalis at 6 minutes, Neosealer Flo showed lowest bacterial count, at 15 minutes AH plus showed lowest bacterial count and 60 minutes Ceraseal showed lowest bacterial count. For the streptococcus mutans at 6 minutes, Neosealer flo showed lowest bacterial count, at 15 min AH plus and Well root ST showed lowest bacterial count and at 60 min well Root ST showed lowest bacterial count.

Conclusion

All sealers showed antibacterial effect, where increasing the time resulted in decreasing Log10 CFU.

This study seeks to assess the cytotoxic impact of various bioceramic sealers, namely Well-Root ST, CeraSeal, and NeoSEALER Flo, in comparison to AH Plus sealer. The evaluation encompasses both the fresh and set states of these sealers, employing the MTT assay on human periodontal ligament fibroblasts.

Materials and methods

Following the manufacturers' instructions, the four tested sealers were blended in a sterile environment and then placed into standardized plastic rings. Extracts derived from the tested sealers were applied to human periodontal ligament fibroblasts. The freshly mixed sealers were examined immediately after mixing, with their extracts prepared at that moment. On the other hand, the remaining specimens, designated as set specimens, were incubated in a humidified environment with 5% CO2 and 95% air at 37º C for 24 hours before extraction to create extracts of the tested sealers. The extracted material was then diluted with DMEM to achieve twelve distinct concentrations of each extract 50%, 25%, 12.5%, 6.25%, 3.12%, 1.56%, 0.78%, 0.4%, 0.2%, 0.1%, 0.05%, and 0.025%. The cytotoxicity of all root canal sealers was evaluated using the MTT assay, followed by the calculation of cell viability percentages.

Results

AH Plus showed the highest toxicity followed by the NeoSEALER Flo then Well-Root ST and the least toxicity was CeraSeal.

Conclusion

The assessed root canal sealers exhibited differing levels of cytotoxicity, and the rise in cell viability percentages was contingent on the concentration.

To compare and analyze the dentinal tubule penetration and sealing efficacy of three commercially available endodontic sealers.(AH Plus, CeraSeal and KP-Root SP). Subjects and methods Sixty extracted mandibular premolars with a single canal were utilized in this study which were extracted from patients aged between 20 and 30 years. Depending on the type of sealer used, the samples were divided into three groups (n=20 per group): Group I (AH Plus sealer), Group II (CeraSeal sealer), and Group III (KP-Root SP sealer). The sealing efficacy was evaluated using a stereomicroscope, while dentinal tubule penetration was analyzed through scanning electron microscopy. One-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey’s test were used to analyze the data. Results CeraSeal demonstrated the greatest dentinal tubule penetration and sealing efficacy, followed by KP-Root SP, with AH Plus sealer exhibiting the lowest performance. Conclusion Bioceramic sealers exhibit superior dentinal tubule penetration and sealing efficacy compared to the AH Plus sealer.

Aim:  In this research, we assessed the sealing performance of various root canal sealers in conjunction with diverse obturation methods Subjects and methods: We selected ninety human mandibular premolars with single roots. The instrumentation was carried out for all specimens using ProTaper Next rotary files until reaching a size of 40/0.06. Irrigation was done by applying 5 mL of 5.25% NaOCl between each instrument, followed by a final rinse of 5 mL of 17% EDTA for 1 minute. Subsequently, we flushed the canals with a generous amount of sterile distilled water. We randomly selected samples and categorized them into three primary groups (n=30) based on the sealer employed. Each primary group was subdivided into three subgroups (n=10) depending on the obturation technique employed. In the groups using bioceramic sealers (Group B, C), the canals were intentionally left partially moist to aid in the setting process, thereby mimicking real-world clinical scenarios. To ensure the sealer fully set, the teeth were kept in an environment with 100% humidity at 37°C for a week. Afterward, the roots were transversely sectioned using a precision linear saw. The cut sections were then examined using a Scanning Electron Microscope. Results: Gap distance is significantly higher in the AH Plus sealer group and lower in the Vertical compaction technique. Conclusion: Bioceramic sealers showed better adaption to dentin and vertical compaction obturation technique showed the best adaptation.

This study evaluated the biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers (CeraSeal, NeoSEALER Flo, and AH-Plus) by implanting them into the subcutaneous tissues of rats and analyzing the tissue response through histopathological and immunohistochemical methods.

Materials and Methods

Sixty male Calomys callosus (Rodentia, Cricetidae) rats were used. The sealers were placed in polyethylene tubes that were inserted into certain dorsal subdermal locations. After 3, 7, and 30 days, the implants were removed, fixed, and processed for microscopic inspection using a glycol methacrylate-embedding procedure.The descriptive analysis focused on fibrous capsule thickness, severity of the inflammatory response, presence of giant cells, and evidence of biomineralization.

Results

CeraSeal and the control group exhibited a milder inflammatory response compared to NeoSEALER Flo and AH-Plus. Additionally, the control group showed the thinnest fibrous capsule, followed by CeraSeal, while AH-Plus demonstrated the thickest capsule.

Conclusions

Within the limitations of this study, CeraSeal demonstrated superior biocompatibility compared to NeoSEALER Flo and AH-Plus sealers.