Authors : Dr. Rebecca Shylla; Dr. Manu Bansal; Dr. Yogini Shekhawat; Dr. Harshita Shekhawat; Dr. Aman Tiwari; Dr. Deepmala Jogani; Dr. Sejal Pund

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 7 - July

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mry667s3

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/mr5ajfbr

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26jul1273

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Background: A durable, fluid-tight seal of the root canal system is essential for successful endodontic treatment. Push-out bond strength is an important indicator of the ability of a sealer to resist dislodgement and maintain long-term sealing.  Aim: To compare the push-out bond strength of calcium silicate–based sealers (CeraSeal and MTA Plus) and an epoxy resin– based sealer (AH Plus) when used with lateral condensation and single-cone obturation techniques.  Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars with a single root canal were instrumented using a standardized rotary system. The teeth were randomly assigned to three sealer groups (MTA Plus, CeraSeal, and AH Plus; n = 20), and each group was further divided into lateral condensation and single-cone subgroups (n = 10). After storage at 37°C in 100% humidity for 30 days, the roots were sectioned into coronal, middle, and apical slices. Push-out bond strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine, and the mode of failure was assessed under a stereomicroscope.  Results: Calcium silicate–based sealers demonstrated higher push-out bond strength than AH Plus. The single-cone technique produced better bond strength for the bioceramic sealers, especially in the apical region, whereas AH Plus showed improved performance with lateral condensation. Mixed and cohesive failures were more common in the bioceramic groups, while adhesive failures predominated with AH Plus.  Conclusion: Both the type of sealer and the obturation technique significantly influence push-out bond strength. Calcium silicate–based sealers used with the single-cone technique achieved stronger bonding to root dentin than the resin-based sealer.

Keywords : Push-Out Bond Strength, Calcium Silicate Sealer, AH Plus, Ceraseal, MTA Plus, Obturation Technique.

References :

1. Pane ES, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Critical evaluation of the push-out bond strength test methodology in endodontics. Journal of Endodontics. 2013;39(4):512-518.
2. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coil JM. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation. Endodontic Topics. 2005;10(1):77-102.
3. Prati C, Gandolfi MG. Calcium silicate bioactive cements as root canal sealers: a review. Dental Materials. 2015;31(4):351-370.
4. Prüllage RK, Urban K, Schaub C, et al. Comparison of push-out bond strength of a premixed bioceramic sealer and an epoxy resin sealer. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2019;23(4):1815-1822.
5. Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, et al. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer. Journal of Endodontics. 2012;38(6):842-845.
6. Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Ex vivo evaluation of the biocompatibility of a new calcium silicate-based root canal sealer. International Endodontic Journal. 2010;43(9):769-774.
7. Camilleri J, Sorrentino F, Damidot D. Investigation of the hydration and bioactivity of MTA-based sealers. Dental Materials. 2011;27(8):712-720.
8. Mallmann G, Santos MA, Santos RE. Surface interaction of premixed bioceramic sealers with radicular dentin. Journal of Dental Research and Reviews. 2018;5(2):45-51.
9. Donnermeyer D, Bürklein S, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Physicochemical properties of a new premixed calcium silicate-based root canal sealer. Scientific Reports. 2019;9:9412.
10. Torabinejad M, Parirokh M. Mineral trioxide aggregate: a comprehensive review. Journal of Endodontics. 2010;36(3):400-415.
11. Gandolfi MG, Siboni F, Prati C. Chemical-physical properties of an MTA-based sealer. Journal of Endodontics. 2014;40(5):680-686.
12. Viapiana R, Flumignan DL, Guerrero CO, et al. Physicochemical and mechanical properties of a new root canal sealer. International Endodontic Journal. 2014;47(6):537-544.
13. Colak M, Erdemir A, Turkun M. Systematic review of the clinical and laboratory performance of AH Plus. Journal of Dentistry. 2018;69:15-26.
14. Nagase R, Tanaka T, Sato Y. Influence of moisture conditioning on the bonding performance of epoxy resin sealers. Dental Materials Journal. 2012;31(3):412-419.
15. Fisher MA, Edwards G, Richardson GD. Volumetric changes and shrinkage patterns of epoxy-resin sealers in different obturation techniques. International Endodontic Journal. 2012;45(8):723-731.
16. Compression and polymerization shrinkage of epoxy-resin endodontic sealers in oval root canals. International Endodontic Journal. 2015;48(11):1022-1029.
17. Eldeniz AU, Erdemir A, Belli S. Shear bond strength of hydrophilic and hydrophobic sealers to dentin. Journal of Endodontics. 2005;31(5):359-363.
18. McMichael GE, Rathbun JE, Gound TG. Density of dentinal tubules across different root thirds in premolars. Journal of Endodontics. 2006;32(4):315-319.
19. Richardson GD, Bey AR, Edwards M. Comparison of single-cone and lateral condensation techniques with bioceramic sealers. Journal of Endodontics. 2015;41(6):910-915.
20. Nagas E, Uyanik MO, Eymirli A, et al. Effect of different moisture conditions on the bond strength of bioceramic sealers. Journal of Endodontics. 2012;38(11):1530-1534.
21. Niu LN, Zhang L, Zhou J, et al. Smear layer removal and its implication in bioceramic sealer adaptation. Dental Materials. 2014;30(10):1102-1111.
22. Borges RP, Sousa-Neto MD, Versiani MA, et al. Changes in the surface roughness and demineralization of dentin after EDTA irrigation. Journal of Endodontics. 2012;38(9):1245-1250.
23. Urban K, Prüllage RK, Schaub C, et al. Microscopic assessment of failure modes in push-out tests of root canal sealers. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2018;22(9):3111-3119.