title: Sealing ability of a novel hydrophilic vs. conventional hydrophobic obturation systems: A bacterial leakage study.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Comparative assessment of apical sealing ability of a novel Smart-Seal System, Resilon, and conventional Gutta-Percha system using a bacterial leakage model.
  
  
  METHODS
  Seventy freshly extracted human single rooted teeth with fully formed apices were randomly divided into three groups (20 each) and two control groups (5 positive and 5 negative). Teeth were de-coronated, and roots were standardized to a working length of 16 mm. Root canal preparation was done with rotary pro-taper file system in all groups. Group A was obturated using Smart-Seal system (Hydrophilic), Group B using Resilon/Epiphany system (Hydrophilic), and Group C using Gutta-Percha (GP)/AH plus system (Hydrophobic) in a single cone technique. Using Enterococcus faecalis, a split chamber bacterial leakage model was developed to evaluate the sealing ability of three obturation systems. Samples will be monitored every 24 hours for 60 days.
  
  
  RESULTS
  All three groups have shown leakage. Novel Smart-Seal System and Resilon have shown similar results and relatively lesser samples leaked in comparison to GP obturations at the end of the observation period. There was no significant difference amongst Resilon and Smart-Seal System (P > 0.05) but there was a significant difference amongst them when compared to GP obturations (P < 0.05).
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Hydrophilic obturations of the root canal shows a better resistance to bacterial leakage as compared to hydrophobic obturations.
authors: Department of Conservative and Endodontic, Yerala Medical Trust Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
authors: Vibha
authors: V
authors: Hegde
authors: Department of Conservative and Endodontic, Yerala Medical Trust Dental College and Hospital, Kharghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
authors: Shashank
authors: S
authors: Arora
keywords: Enterococcus faecalis; gutta-percha; hydrophilic; hydrophobic; resilon; smart-seal system
references: Int Endod J. 1994 Sep;27(5):239-44
references: 7814135
references: J Endod. 1983 Oct;9(10):407-10
references: 6579164
references: J Endod. 1993 Sep;19(9):458-61
references: 8263453
references: Int Endod J. 2009 Apr;42(4):303-12
references: 19220520
references: Int Endod J. 2008 Jan;41(1):54-9
references: 17916069
references: J Endod. 2013 Jul;39(7):883-8
references: 23791256
references: J Endod. 2002 Sep;28(9):638-42
references: 12236306
references: J Endod. 2005 Sep;31(9):687-90
references: 16123708
references: J Endod. 1999 Jan;25(1):14-6
references: 10206797
references: Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2002 Dec;94(6):651-2
references: 12464886
references: J Endod. 2005 May;31(5):392-5
references: 15851936
references: J Endod. 2004 May;30(5):342-7
references: 15107647
references: Int Endod J. 1990 Jan;23(1):28-33
references: 2391178
references: J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jul;17(4):364-8
references: 25125851
references: J Dent. 2013 Sep;41(9):796-801
references: 23831417
references: J Endod. 2005 Aug;31(8):584-9
references: 16044041
references: Endod Dent Traumatol. 1995 Apr;11(2):90-4
references: 7641623
references: J Endod. 2006 Apr;32(4):362-4
references: 16554213
references: J Endod. 2001 Jan;27(1):36-9
references: 11487161
references: J Endod. 2004 May;30(5):315-20
references: 15107642
references: Arch Oral Biol. 1975 Jul;20(7):473-7
references: 807189